Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

N V RAMANA

221 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 201–221.

VIJAY MAHADEORAO KUBADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR

2018 INSC 5844 July 2018Disposed off

The appellant owned land that was acquired by the state and an award was passed on 30‑11‑1987. A notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was sent on 04‑12‑1987 but the award itself was not attached. The appellant received a certified copy of the award only on 03‑02‑1988 and filed a reference for enhancem

BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2017 INSC 4424 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Tamkinat Ara, was allegedly burned to death by her husband and several in‑laws. The trial court convicted the husband, father‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law (Bibi Parwana Khatoon) and her husband (Md. Hasan) under IPC s.304B read with s.34, sentencing them to imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conv

NTPC LTD.versusM/S. DECONAR SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 1484 March 2021Dismissed

The dispute arose from two construction contracts awarded by NTPC Ltd. to M/s Deconar Services, wherein a 16% rebate was offered on the condition of simultaneous execution of both projects. The arbitrator held that the rebate was conditional and that NTPC's delay in handing over sites breached that condition, ordering

STATE OF PUNJABversusRAKESH KUMAR

2018 INSC 11313 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The accused were apprehended with bulk quantities of manufactured narcotic drugs and were convicted under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The High Court, however, suspended their sentences under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the matter shoul

M/S GEO MILLER & CO. PVT. LTD.versusCHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD.

2019 INSC 9893 September 2019Dismissed

The appellant, M/s Geo Miller & Co., sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for three water‑treatment contracts dated 1979‑1985, alleging non‑payment by the respondent. The respondent contended that the cause of action arose when the final bills were presen

N.S. NANDIESHA REDDYversusKAVITHA MAHESH

2021 INSC 3743 August 2021Disposed off

The Karnataka High Court had declared the election of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and ordered the Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint against Returning Officer Ashok Mensinkai under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly giving f

SOPANRAO & ANR.versusSYED MEHMOOD & ORS.

2019 INSC 7193 July 2019Dismissed

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in 1987 seeking declaration that certain lands were Inam lands of Niyamatullah Shah Dargah and also seeking possession of those lands from the defendants (appellants). The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and non‑joinder of parties. The District Judge

SATISHCHANDRA RATANLAL SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 23 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a retired bank employee, obtained a loan of Rs.27 lakh from a money‑lending company whose director (respondent No.2) later filed a criminal complaint alleging non‑payment and threats. The High Court dismissed the appellant's Section 482 CrPC application to quash the FIR and the charge‑sheet, holding that

NIMAY SAHversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2020 INSC 6702 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nimay Sah, elder brother of the deceased's husband, was convicted under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC for alleged dowry harassment leading to the death of his sister‑in‑law, Asha Kumari. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and found that, apart from

ILANGOVANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2020 INSC 5302 September 2020Dismissed

The appellant was convicted for murder and causing injuries after allegedly attacking the complainant and the deceased with an iron rod during a family feud. The trial court sentenced him under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, while acquitting three co‑accused who were relatives of the appellant. On appeal, the High Court red

DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2020 INSC 2532 March 2020Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the President's Constitution Orders 272 and 273 (5 August 2019) that made the entire Indian Constitution applicable to Jammu & Kashmir, arguing that the orders were unconstitutional. They sought a reference to a larger Bench, contending that two earlier Supreme Court judgments—Prem Nath Kaul

M. G. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2017 INSC 1982 March 2017Dismissed

The State of Karnataka prosecuted four relatives of the complainant for offences under Sections 506, 354 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the fatal assault of Basavaraj. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly questioni

GURCHARAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2020 INSC 5701 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Gurcharan Singh was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the suicide of his wife, Shinder Kaur, who died after ingesting aluminium phosphide. The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction despite the absence of direct evidence of cruelty, dowry harassment, or wilful

SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 11071 October 2019Case Partly allowed

Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of his wife Anita and their four children, based largely on circumstantial evidence, two extra‑judicial confessions and motive. The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's affirmation of his conviction and death sentence,

SHASHI BHUSAN PRASADversusINSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

2019 INSC 8501 August 2019Dismissed

Shashi Bhushan Prasad, a constable of the Central Industrial Security Force, was charged criminally under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act for allegedly supplying an unlicensed revolver used in a murder, and was acquitted when prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Simultaneously, a departmental inquiry under Rule 34 of th

N PARAMESWARAN UNNIversusG KANNAN AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 1941 March 2017Disposed off

The appellant, N. Parameswaran Unni, presented two cheques drawn by the first respondent, G. Kannan, which were returned unpaid and received a bank intimation on 8 April 1991. He issued a statutory notice by registered post on 12 April 1991, which was returned marked "addressee absent," and a second notice on 4 May 199

BHAGWATI @ REENAversusANIL CHOUBEY

2017 INSC 1961 March 2017Disposed off

The husband filed a suit seeking annulment of his marriage, alleging that he was forced to marry the wife under threat, that the marriage was not consummated willingly, and that the wife was under 18 at the time of marriage. The trial court held the wife was a minor, declared the marriage void ab initio, and affirmed t

FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.versusAMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.

2022 INSC 1291 February 2022

Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL) and Future Retail Ltd (FRL) challenged orders of the Delhi High Court Single Judge that enforced an emergency arbitrator’s interim award in a dispute over FRL’s sale of retail assets to Reliance. The appellants alleged that the judge denied them a fair opportunity to present their defe

UNION OF INDIAversusK. A. NAJEEB

2021 INSC 501 February 2021Dismissed

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) appealed against the Kerala High Court’s order granting bail to K. A. NajeeB, who was charged under multiple IPC offences, the Explosive Substances Act and several provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The High Court had released the undertrial on bail, c

UNION OF INDIAversusLEEN MARTIN & ANR.

2018 INSC 821 February 2018Dismissed

The Union of India appealed a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for the alleged recovery of 12.03 kg of hashish from respondent No.1 at Mumbai airport. The trial court had convicted the accused based largely on the testimony of an intelligence officer (PW‑1), while the High Cour

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search