Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

R C LAHOTI

330 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 1–200.

OM WATI GAUR AND ORS.versusJITENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 45631 October 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the heirs of a deceased tenant (the appellants) against an eviction decree. The landlords had terminated the tenancy and sued for eviction, rent, damages and mesne profits. After the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force, the a

GANESH LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2001 INSC 54531 October 2001Dismissed

The appellant Ganesh Lal was convicted for raping, murdering and stealing from an 11‑year‑old girl. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts: the recovery of the victim's silver ornaments (kuralias) and a blood‑stained axe at the accused's direction, possession of blood‑ and semen‑stained clothes hidd

CIFCO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusCUSTODIAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 17031 March 2005Dismissed

The Special Court under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, initially directed a High Court Receiver to sell certain properties to recover dues, but later ordered the Custodian appointed under the Act to act as Receiver because the High Court Receiver was unable to c

S.M. NILAJKAR AND ORS.versusTELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA

2003 INSC 19531 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, a group of casual workmen employed by the Telecom Department for a temporary cable‑laying project, were terminated when the project ended in 1986‑87. They sought reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages, arguing that their termination fell under sub‑clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Indust

T. LAKSHMIPATHI AND ORS.versusP. NITHYANANDA REDDY AND ORS.

2003 INSC 19631 March 2003Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an eviction suit under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 where the landlord, a co‑owner of a disputed property, sought possession of premises occupied by tenants who had transferred possession to third parties that had bought only part of the co‑owners' shares. The

D.S. PARVATHAMMAversusA. SRINIVASAN

2003 INSC 19831 March 2003Dismissed

The appellant, D.S. Parvathamma, claimed that an agreement to purchase the suit premises made in 1970 had placed her in possession as a prospective vendor and sought protection of that possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The respondent, A. Srinivasan, a subsequent bona‑fide transferee wh

HARIKRISHNA LALversusBABU LAL MARANDI

2003 INSC 58530 October 2003Dismissed

Harikrishna Lal and Babu Lal Marandi contested the 2001 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election from Ramgarh. The respondent's nomination paper listed his name as "Babu Lal Marandi" while the electoral roll showed "Babu Marandi", omitting the middle name "Lal". No objection was raised at the scrutiny stage and the retu

ANTHONY D'SOUZA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 45330 October 2002Dismissed

The appellants were convicted for the murder of a lorry driver and cleaner based solely on circumstantial evidence, including their alleged involvement in a road accident, medical treatment for injuries, recovery of a wrist‑watch belonging to the deceased, fertilizer bags and a blood‑stained wooden weapon, and their fa

RAKESH VIJversusRAMINDER PAL SINGH SETHI

2005 INSC 46030 September 2005

The appellant, Rakesh Vij, challenged an eviction order against his father’s tenancy in a shop‑cum‑flat in Chandigarh, arguing that the landlord could not evict a tenant from a non‑residential building under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as amended in 1974. The Court examined the effect of the 1956 A

T.P. MOIDEEN KOYAversusGOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 56530 September 2004Dismissed

The petitioner T.P. Moideen Koya challenged a detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, claiming it was illegal because he was already in custody and the order failed to consider that fact. The same issue had been raised earlier in a habeas corpu

JAVED AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 34230 July 2003Dismissed

The petitioners were disqualified from contesting or holding Panchayat offices under Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 because they had more than two living children. They challenged the provisions as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constituti

CAPTAIN SUBE SINGH AND ORS.versusLT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 32930 April 2004Case Partly allowed

The appellants, private stage‑carriage operators, challenged a Delhi Government notification dated 31‑12‑1999 issued under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which (i) raised the fees for using DTC bus shelters and terminals and (ii) made all DTC concessional passes binding on private operators. The Supreme Co

RATAN LAL JAIN AND ORS.versusUMA SHANKAR VYAS AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5730 January 2002Dismissed

The plaintiffs, owners of a plot of land, leased it to the respondents who built a commercial complex and sub-let the shops. After the respondents defaulted on lease premium, the plaintiffs sued for arrears and eviction. The trial court decreed actual possession against the respondents and only symbolic possession agai

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 67829 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) prepared a draft scheme on 13‑Feb‑1986 to nationalise 39 bus routes under Section 68‑C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. After objections were filed, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force and the competent authority declared the scheme to have lapsed und

PRATIBHA SINGH AND ANR.versusSHANTI DEVI PRASAD AND ANR.

2002 INSC 50329 November 2002Disposed off

The Supreme Court dealt with a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell immovable land where the plaint failed to give a precise description of the property and no map was annexed. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the decree did not identify the land, leading to execution difficulties, inclu

RAM PRASAD SARMAversusMANI KUMAR SUBBA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 44629 October 2002Disposed off

Ram Prasad Sarma, who lost the 1999 Lok Sabha election for Tezpur to Mani Kumar Subba, filed an election petition alleging booth‑capturing and rigging. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition under Section 86(1) on three grounds: the petition was filed beyond the 45‑day limitation, a candidate (Abu Khayer) was not

RAM BHUALversusAMBIKA SINGH

2005 INSC 45529 September 2005Dismissed

In the 2002 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Ram Bhual was declared elected. Defeated candidate Ambika Singh filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected the nomination of independent candidate Sita

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusRAJ RANI

2005 INSC 38629 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, the State of Haryana, appealed decrees that held a surgeon and the State liable for a woman's pregnancy after a sterilization operation performed by a surgeon employed by the State. The Supreme Court examined whether the surgeon could be held liable without proof of negligence, noting that pregnancy af

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.versusDEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD.

2003 INSC 43629 August 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑operative housing society, maintained a savings account with the respondent bank and alleged that the bank dishonestly honored forged cheques, debiting Rs 75,70,352. A complaint was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The

SMT. SHAILversusSHRI MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 21629 March 2004Disposed off

The petitioner, Smt. Shail, was a victim of offences under Sections 376 and 328 of the IPC by the respondent, Manoj Kumar, who later married her to avoid conviction but subsequently deserted her. She filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, which was delayed; the High Court

FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVN. AND SOUND POLLUTIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 53728 October 2005Dismissed

The Forum, an environmental NGO, challenged the constitutional validity of sub‑rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which permits State Governments to relax night‑time loud‑speaker restrictions for up to fifteen days a year during cultural or religious festivals. The petition

MYLAPORE CLUBversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2005 INSC 53928 October 2005Dismissed

The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 gave tenants who built structures on landlords' land protection against eviction and a right to compensation. The Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (effective 1996) amended the Act to exempt tenancies of land owned by religious institutions and charities a

RAFIQUE BIBI (D) BY LRS.versusSYED WALIUDDIN (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 43228 August 2003Dismissed

The landlords filed an eviction suit under Section 13(1)(a) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 alleging that the tenants had defaulted in rent for over three years. While the suit was pending, Ajmer became part of Rajasthan, bringing the premises within the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) A

THE STATE OF MADHYPRADESH AND ORS.versusGOPAL D. TIRTHANI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 33728 July 2003Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Madhya Pradesh's scheme reserving 20% of postgraduate medical seats for doctors employed by the State and the procedures for their admission. It held that the quota constitutes a separate channel of entry, not a communal reservation, and therefore satisfies Article 14. The Cou

RAJESH K. GUPTAversusRAM GOPAL AGARWALA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 23728 April 2005Dismissed

Rajesh K. Gupta, a Supreme Court advocate, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of his daughter Rose Mala, who was residing with her mother Aruna Gupta and the maternal grandparents. He alleged that the mother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and that the child had been abducted by the grandparents. The De

HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHANversusRANJEET SINGH TALWANDI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 23528 April 2005Dismissed

The appellant challenged the election of Ranjit Singh Talwandi, alleging that religious leaders had appealed to voters to support him, which was claimed to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether such an appeal, made by religious leaders,

MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR.versusMUNNI DEVI

2005 INSC 23628 April 2005Dismissed

The landlord, Munni Devi, sought eviction of the tenants, Manoj Kumar and others, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming the building was dilapidated and needed demolition for a new business and for her son’s employment. The Prescribed Authority

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA AND ANR.versusBALINDER BACHAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 32428 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana notified a Town Planning Scheme under Section 192(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which incorporated land belonging to the deceased Rajinder Kaur. She objected, and the scheme was modified to reserve 25% of the area, including 3.16 kanals, as open space for a public park. After

R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA

2003 INSC 13128 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, R. Balakrishna Pillai (former Minister for Electricity, Kerala) and P. Kesava Pillai (Technical Member/Chairman of KSEB), were convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly selling 1,22,41,440 units of Kerala electricity to Mis. Graphite India L

JAMAL UDDIN AHMADversusABU SALEH NAJMUDDIN AND ANR.

2003 INSC 13228 February 2003Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the election of the respondent to the Assam Legislative Assembly, alleging that the election petition was invalidly presented to the Stamp Reporter of the Gauhati High Court. The respondents argued that the presentation complied with Chapter VIII‑A of the Gauhati High Court Rules and was ther

SOBHA HYMAVATHI DEVIversusSETTI GANGADHARA SWAMY AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5128 January 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision that Sobha Hyma Vathi Devi, elected from a Scheduled Tribe (ST) reserved assembly constituency, was ineligible because she belonged to the forward Patnaik Sistu Karnam caste, not the Bhagatha ST community. The Court affirmed that the marriage of a non‑tr

RAMADHAR SHRIVASversusBHAGWANDAS

2005 INSC 53127 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Ramadhar purchased a house from Hiralal, who was held by a trial court to be the absolute owner. In the earlier suit, the court found that Bhagwandas was a tenant paying rent to Hiralal and, after the sale, became a tenant of Ramadhar; the suit against him was dismissed. In a later suit for eviction and arrears, the tr

SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJUversusNIMMAKA JAYA RAJU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 53227 October 2005Dismissed

The appellant, elected from the Naguru (ST) constituency in 1999, was challenged under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act on the ground that he did not belong to the "Konda Dora" Scheduled Tribe but was a Kshatriya. The appellant argued that an earlier election petition (E.P. 13 of 1983) which had dismi

ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD.versusINDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62227 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. entered into a lease‑finance agreement with Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. for 56 cars, paying all rentals, security deposit and a terminal fee, after which ownership was to vest in the lessee. Fairgrowth was later notified as a party to illegal transactions under Section 3(2) of the Special

SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRARversusSUKH DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62327 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2002 Punjab Assembly election, Sukh Darshan Singh was declared elected over Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar by a narrow margin. Brar filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging that a rival's nomination was improperly accepted and that Singh had committed the corrupt practice

DR. MAHACHANDRA PRASAD SINGHversusCHAIRMAN, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62127 October 2004Dismissed

The petitioner, elected to the Bihar Legislative Council on an Indian National Congress ticket, contested a Lok Sabha election as an independent (and in a second petition as a Samajwadi Party candidate). The Chairman of the Council disqualified him under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, holding that he had volu

M/S. MAHENDRA SAREE EMPORIUMversusG.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY

2004 INSC 48227 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord G.V. Srinivasa Murthy leased a non‑residential premises to Mahendra Saree Emporium, originally a sole proprietorship, which later converted into a partnership with the tenant's relatives. The landlord claimed unlawful sub‑letting under Section 21(1)(t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and obtained a

M/S. K. GANESH SHETversusSRI A.K. JAYARAMA SHEKA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 48327 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sought eviction of a tenant and his sub‑tenants under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging illegal sub‑letting without consent. The District Judge upheld the illegal sub‑letting and ordered eviction, but the High Court, relying on A.S. Sulochana's case, refused eviction on the

JAYENDRA SARASWATHY SWAMIGAL, TAMIL NADUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

2005 INSC 52826 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, head of the Kanchi Mutt, was charged with conspiracy to murder the in‑charge manager of Devarajaswamy Devasthanam. He and 24 co‑accused filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the CrPC, alleging that the Tamil Nadu State machinery was fabricating evidence, intimidating defence couns

STATE OF GUJARATversusMIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT AND ORS.

2005 INSC 52526 October 2005Dismissed

The Gujarat Legislature enacted the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994, imposing a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks of any age. Butchers (Kureshis) challenged the amendment as an unreasonable restriction on their right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Consti

M/S. S.B.P. AND CO.versusM/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 52626 October 2005Disposed off

The case concerned the nature of the power exercised by the Chief Justice of a High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint arbitrators when parties fail to do so. The petitioners argued that this power is judicial, requiring the Chief Justice to

M/S. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

1999 INSC 48826 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a manufacturer of laminated textile fabrics, sought classification of its waste side strips and scrap (referred to as "foam patty") as non‑excisable items under Chapter 59 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Authority classified the material as laminated fabrics, first as

RAKESH WADHAWAN AND ORS.versusM/S. JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

2002 INSC 23326 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging the tenants defaulted on rent of Rs 2000 per month as stipulated in the lease. The tenants contended that the rent was actually Rs 1800 per month, a rate they had been directed to deposit during a parallel partition

L.I.C. OF INDIAversusANURADHA

2004 INSC 21526 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The wife of a missing insured, Anuradha, claimed the death benefit under a life insurance policy after her husband disappeared and remained unheard of for more than seven years, invoking Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The insurer, LIC, rejected the claim on the ground that the policy had lapsed due to non‑payment of

BHAGAT RAM AND ANR.versusSURESH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 67225 November 2003Dismissed

The appellants, sons of the deceased Mast Ram, challenged the sale of their father's property by his widow Muni Devi, arguing that a statement recorded by the Registrar of Deeds on 21 May 1973 constituted a codicil that, if valid, limited the widow to a life estate. The Court examined whether a codicil must be executed

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusLAXUMAN

2005 INSC 52125 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed against High Court orders that had allowed a claimant, Laxuman, to file a belated application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Karnataka‑amended Land Acquisition Act seeking a court‑directed reference for enhanced compensation. The claimant had filed the initial application for reference wi

STATE OF PUNJABversusSHIV RAM AND ORS.

2005 INSC 38225 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab and a lady surgeon were sued by Shiv Ram and his wife for damages after the wife became pregnant and gave birth despite having undergone a tubectomy in 1984. The trial court and the High Court awarded Rs.50,000, holding the State liable for the failed sterilisation. On appeal, the Supreme Court exam

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusANAND PRAKASH SOLANKI

2003 INSC 41725 August 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Anand Prakash Solanki, a former Special Judge, was appointed President of the District Consumer Protection Forum (DCPF) in Pali and later transferred by the Rajasthan Government to Jalore and then Banswara. He challenged the transfer, and the Rajasthan High Court held that the concept of transfer did not exist for DCPF

GAZI SADUDDIN,versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 41825 August 2003Dismissed

Gazi Saduddin was served a notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 alleging criminal proceedings, communal disharmony, links with SIMI, a false caste certificate and extortion. The Deputy Commissioner of Police issued an order of externment under Section 56(1)(a), (b) and (bb), which the High Court uphel

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHARJEET RICE MILLS

2005 INSC 30925 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Harjeet Rice Mills, insured with National Insurance Co., claimed loss of stock after a fire in its godown, asserting the fire was accidental and caused by a short circuit. The insurer contested, alleging the fire was arson, the loss exaggerated, and that the claim was fraudulent, relying on a private investigator’s rep

STATE OF BIHARversusKALIKA KUER @ KALIKA SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 25725 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar appealed a Patna High Court judgment that held Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 to be ultra‑vires Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution and diluted the effect of Sections 4(b), 4(c) and 37. The High Court also declared the earl

UNION OF INDIAversusWEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 13025 February 2004Dismissed

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd and Dandeli Ferro Alloys Ltd transported goods by rail and were charged a flat freight rate that denied them the benefit of the telescopic rate system, resulting in higher charges. They filed complaints under Section 28 of the Railways Act, 1890; the Railway Tribunal held the rates illegal bu

KAILASH CHANDRA AND ANRversusMUKUNDI LAL AND ORS.

2002 INSC 4925 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Board leased premises to the respondents, who sublet them to the appellants. After the lease expired, the Board demanded rent, and the appellants deposited the rent in court under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, citing doubt as to the rightful

ABDUL RASAK AND ORS.versusKERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5025 January 2002Disposed off

The State of Kerala acquired land for its Public Health Engineering Department under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Collector made a compensation award in 1986. Claimants sought enhancement of compensation before a civil court, which rendered awards between 1989 and 1991. In 1984 the Kerala Water Authority (KW

M/S SARDAR CONSTRUCTION CO.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1999 INSC 2325 January 1999Dismissed

Miss Sardar Construction Co. entered into a works contract with the State of Gujarat and an arbitration award was made before 1 January 1994, the date on which the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 came into force. The award had not become final when the Act became operative. The pe

N.D. THANDANI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusARNAVAZ RUSTOM PRINTER AND ANR.

2003 INSC 66624 November 2003Dismissed

The tenant, N.D. Thandani (deceased), repeatedly failed to make monthly rent deposits as required by the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules and did not furnish the prescribed deposit particulars to the landlord. Despite a Supreme Court order directing the tenant to clear arrears within two months and

DHARAM DUTT AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 66724 November 2003Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001, alleging that it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 300A of the Constitution by taking over the assets of the Indian Council of World Affairs Society and by being enacted in defiance of a prior High Court judgment that had struck down a

MOHD. SIDDIQ ALIversusHIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 51924 October 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the appointment of District Munsiff magistrates in Andhra Pradesh where a number of women and SC/ST candidates were selected under Rule 22‑A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. The petitioners argued that the rule, even after amendment, only created a preference for

NARPAT SINGH ETC. ETC.versusJAIPUR DEVELOPMENT

2002 INSC 22224 April 2002Disposed off

The appellants' land was acquired under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act for a public development scheme, and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded them monetary compensation together with residential plots of 1,000 or 2,000 square yards. A tripartite settlement later reduced the compensation and confirmed the plot al

ABDUL KADERversusG.D. GOVINDARAJ (D) BY LRS.

2002 INSC 23024 April 2002Dismissed

The tenant held premises under a lease that required payment of monthly rent of Rs 100 and, additionally, Rs 111 as half of the annual property tax. The tenant failed to pay rent for January‑March 1990 and the agreed tax for three years. After a two‑month notice demanding the arrears, the tenant tendered only the rent,

RAM DASSversusDAVINDER

2004 INSC 20724 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Ram Dass, filed an eviction suit against his tenant, Davinder, under Section 13(2)(v) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, alleging the tenant had ceased to occupy the shop for four months without reasonable cause. The Rent Controller decreed in favour of the landlord, a decision

G.REGHUNATHANversusK.V. VARGHESE

2005 INSC 37123 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant, G. Reghunathan, leased a room for a jewellery shop under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and subsequently altered the premises without the landlord's consent while also defaulting on rent. The landlord sought eviction on two grounds: non‑payment of rent under Section 11(2) and materi

NILESH NANDKUMAR SHAHversusSIKANDAR AZIZ PATEL

2002 INSC 34723 August 2002Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of three tenants occupying tenements where each unit comprised a front commercial room and a rear residential room, filing suit under the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act) did not apply to dual‑purpose

P.M. PUNNOOSEversusKM. MUNNERUDDIN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 32823 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant, P.M. Punnoose, paid rent by money orders but the landlords, K.M. Munneruddin et al., disputed the amounts and refused some payments, leading to an eviction petition under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller held the tenant in wilful default and o

SUSHIL KUMAR SABHARWALversusGURPREET SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 22023 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a landlord‑tenant suit where the landlord obtained an ex‑parte decree for rent arrears and eviction. The tenant contended that he never received a summons because the process server’s report was unreliable and he testified under oath that no summons was served. The Court evaluated the require

P.S. PAREED KAKA AND ORS.versusSHAFEE AHMED SAHEB

2004 INSC 20223 March 2004Dismissed

The landlord filed eviction petitions under Sections 21(h) and 21(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, seeking possession of premises for his own residence and for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court dismissed the petitions, finding the landlord had not proved the building was dilapidated. The Karnata

JAYARAMDAS AND SONSversusMIRZA RAFATULLAH BAIG AND ORS.

2004 INSC 20423 March 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

Jayaramdas & Sons filed a suit for a permanent preventive injunction against Mirza Rafatullah Baig and others, which was dismissed by the trial court. The appellants sought to introduce additional certified copies of public records in the first appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, but their application wa

STATE OF ORISSAversusSUDHAKAR DAS (DEAD) BY LRS.

2000 INSC 9423 February 2000Disposed off

The State of Orissa appealed a decree based on an arbitration award made against the estate of the late Sudhakar Das. The arbitration agreement lacked an escalation clause, and the arbitrator had awarded escalation charges, pendente‑lite interest, and interest for the pre‑reference period. The Supreme Court held that,

KAMALESHWAR KISHORE SINGHversusPARAS NATH SINGH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 57922 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh filed a partition suit valued at Rs 16 lakhs and paid a fixed court fee of Rs 29.25, assuming it was a simple partition case. Defendant No. 20 objected, leading the trial court to order payment of ad‑valorem court fee on 10% of the sale‑deed value of certain properties. The defendant later cla

PARVINDER SINGHversusRENU GAUTAM AND ORS.

2004 INSC 30522 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord of a shop in Shimla sued the widow and minor son of the deceased tenant for eviction under Section 14(2)(ii)(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, alleging that the tenant had sublet the premises to a partner and that the subletting continued after his death. The Rent Controller, the app

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusM/S. MAHAVEER OIL INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

1999 INSC 19622 April 1999Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan, under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, issued an incentive scheme in 1987 exempting new industrial units, including oil extraction and manufacturing, from sales tax. In 1990 the State withdrew this exemption for oil industries by a notification issued under both the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and

C.M. BEENA AND ANR.versusP.N. RAMACHANDRA RAO

2004 INSC 19422 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent (landlord) sued the appellants (father and son) for mandatory injunction to vacate a shop premises, alleging that a deed of licence executed in 1981 had terminated. The trial court and first appellate court found the appellants to be tenants, but the High Court reversed, treating the deed as a licence to

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.versusNEW GOVINDPUR COAL CO. PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 19522 March 2004Dismissed

Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), a Central Government company appointed as custodian of coking coal mines, claimed recovery of excess payments made to New Govindpur Coal Co. for the management period (17 Oct 1971 to 30 Apr 1972) under Section 25 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The claim was su

GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND ANR.versusKULADHAR PHUKAN AND ANR.

2002 INSC 17122 March 2002Disposed off

Kuladhar Phukan, a judicial officer of the Assam Judicial Service, was appointed ad‑hoc as Deputy Secretary in the Assam Legal Service in 1986 after his application was forwarded by the High Court and his services were spared. He was later regularised and promoted in the Legal Service without any consultation with the

UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD.versusDELHI ADMINIS1RATION AND ORS.

2001 INSC 16322 March 2001Case Allowed

Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, challenged a Delhi Administration notification issued under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976 that imposed Minimum Sales Figures (MSF) as a condition for obtaining an L‑1 licence for the excise year 2000‑2001. The petiti

AMERANDRA PRATAP SINGHversusTEJ BAHADUR PRAJAPATI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 66221 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a member of a scheduled tribe, purchased a parcel of land in Sundergarh that had previously been transferred among tribal owners and later sold to a non‑tribal with statutory permission. The respondent encroached on the land and claimed title by adverse possession, arguing that more than twelve years of

JAGAT PAL DHAWANversusKAHAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2002 INSC 48721 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Jagat Pal Dhawan, filed a suit under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 seeking eviction of his tenant, Kahan Singh, on the ground that the over‑100‑year‑old building was required bona‑fide for reconstruction into a modern three‑storeyed house. The trial court and the Hi

A. SATYANARAYAN SHAHversusM. YADIGIRI

2002 INSC 48921 November 2002Disposed off

The landlord sought eviction of a tenant occupying a piece of land with a small wooden structure under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The tenant claimed he only rented the land and owned the wooden structure, arguing that the structure was not a "building" within the meaning of Section

PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMAversusBURMAH SHELL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

2002 INSC 34521 August 2002Disposed off

The appellant claimed entitlement to a plot allotted by the Burmah Shell Co‑op Housing Society under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, but the society challenged the appointment and obtained an interim restraining order from a civil court. The society failed to appear

BOMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGversusLAFFANS (I) PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 22121 April 2005Disposed off

Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (the licensee) supplied electricity to Laffans (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the consumer). Several meters installed at the consumer's premises either burnt out or were found running slow, leading the licensee to replace them without referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspe

TIRUPATI BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusSTTE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 30121 April 2004Disposed off

The Patna High Court, exercising its Article 226 jurisdiction, issued an interim order that halted construction activities on Bailey Road, prompting seven builders to seek special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, directing the petitioners to approach the High Court, but lat

RAJA MUTHUKONE (D) BY LRS.versusT. GOPALASAMI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 16721 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant failed to pay rent for June 1983 to November 1984 and the landlord served a notice under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The tenant informed the landlord that the rent had been deposited in other court proceedings, but the landlord filed an

PAUL GEORGEversusSTATE

2002 INSC 3721 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Paul George, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. He appealed, and the High Court dismissed his criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC by a non‑speaking order stating merely that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found.

P. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY AND ANR.versusM/S PRATAP STEELS LTD.

2002 INSC 3821 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (vendors) entered into a sale agreement with the respondent (buyer) for Rs.40.25 lakh, conditioning the sale on obtaining clearance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by a stipulated date. When the clearance was not obtained, the vendors cancelled the agreement and refunded part of t

BHARAT BHUSHAN BANSALversusU.P. SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., KANPUR

1999 INSC 1821 January 1999Dismissed

The appellant entered into a construction contract with the respondent that contained clauses making the decisions of the Executive Engineer and the Managing Director final and binding on the parties. Disputes arose over payments and work, and the appellant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arb

SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR.versusSWAMI ASHANAND & ANR.

2002 INSC 57720 December 2002Dismissed

The landlord, Swami Ashanand, a sanyasi, owned a building in Haridwar occupied by four tenants. He filed an eviction suit under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking demolition and reconstruction to create a residence, temple, and satsang hall for his

K. SIVARAMAIAHversusRUKMANI AMMAL

2003 INSC 65520 November 2003Disposed off

The appellant and respondent owned adjoining properties in Chennai, where the appellant opened windows and a ventilator that overlooked the respondent's land. The respondent's mother sued in 1976 for an injunction to close the openings, but the trial court dismissed the injunction claim without deciding any easement ri

LAKSHMI RAM BHUYANversusHARI PRASAD BHUYAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 48320 November 2002Disposed off

In a title suit filed in 1978, the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appeal upheld the dismissal, and the High Court allowed the second appeal but only directed that a decree be drawn up by the trial court. The trial court prepared a decree that mentioned only costs, omitting the numerous reliefs claimed in the

VITHAL N. SHETTI AND ANR.versusPRAKASH N. RUDRAKAR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 47920 November 2002Dismissed

The tenant, Vithal N. Shetti, had occupied premises in Pune and erected a permanent structure (dining hall, kitchen, lavatory) in 1961. The landlord, Prakash N. Rudrakar, claimed the construction was done without his written consent and without municipal plan sanction, invoking Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hot

MADHUKAR AND ORS.versusSANGRAM AND ORS.

2001 INSC 22020 April 2001Disposed off

The respondents filed a declaratory suit claiming joint ownership of the suit property and seeking to declare certain gift and sale deeds ineffective. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of limitation and that a prior decree (O.S. No. 93/71) operated as res judicata against Defendant No. 1 only, despite s

SHIV DUIT JADIYAversusGANGA DEVI

2002 INSC 9420 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

In the first suit, the tenant defaulted on rent but deposited the arrears in court under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and the trial court denied eviction. The landlord appealed, withdrew the appeal, and meanwhile filed a second suit alleging a new default for the per

GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4420 January 2005

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of luxury‑tax statutes enacted by Uttar Pradesh (1995), Andhra Pradesh (1987) and West Bengal (1994) which imposed tax on the supply of tobacco and other goods described as "luxuries". The central issue was whether Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule permit

RAJ KUMARversusSARDARI LAL

2004 INSC 4120 January 2004Dismissed

During a suit concerning an immovable property, respondents 2 and 3 sold the suit property to respondent 4, who was unaware of the pending litigation. An ex‑parte decree was later passed against respondents 2 and 3. Respondent 4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree and sought to be bro

V.C. PERUMALversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 1420 January 1999Dismissed

V.C. Perumal, a directly recruited police officer, challenged the year his name was placed on the select list for promotion to the Indian Police Service, arguing it should have been in the 1977 list rather than the 1978 list. The Court examined Regulation 5 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which

UTKAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATIONversusCENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD

1999 INSC 1520 January 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Utkal Commercial Corporation entered into a contract with Central Coal Fields Ltd to supply alumina ferric, which expired in August 1975. A dispute arose and the appellant served a notice on 12 September 1976 demanding the respondent concur in the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 194

GANGA RETREAT AND TOWERS LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 74119 December 2003Dismissed

The appellants, Ganga Retreat and Towers Ltd., bought a prime property at a public auction on the basis that it was free‑hold, ceiling‑free and had a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0. After paying the full consideration, they obtained possession and applied for building‑plan approval, but the municipal bye‑laws were amend

BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OF ASSAMversusMD. SARIFUZ ZAMAN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 74919 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

A student discovered that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded on the Board of Secondary Education, Assam certificate and applied for correction eight years after the certificate was issued. The Board, relying on Regulation 8, rejected the application because it was filed beyond the three‑year period prescribed f

SHALIGRAM SHRIVASTAVAversusNARESH SINGH PATEL

2002 INSC 56219 December 2002Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order upholding the rejection of a candidate’s nomination in a bye‑election. The Election Commission had instructed Returning Officers to require candidates to fill a proforma disclosing information relevant to disqualification under Section 8

VINOD KUMARversusPREM LATA

2003 INSC 40219 August 2003Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for non‑payment of rent. The High Court ordered eviction, but the Supreme Court, on special leave, set aside that order and remitted the matter to the Rent Controller to apply the law laid dow

M/S. MASTER MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.versusMETCALFE AND HODGKINSON PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 21419 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) floated a limited tender for survey services and shortlisted Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) and Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. (first respondent). The appellant’s bid was 25% lower, but the first respondent challenged the award on the ground that the appellant

MANSOOR KHANversusMOTIRAM HAREBHAN KHARA T AND ANR.

2002 INSC 15519 March 2002Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit in 1985 against the tenant of a shop in Risod, before the city was declared a municipality. In 1989 Risod was notified as a municipality, bringing the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 into force for the premises. The tenant argued that, becau

STATE OF U.P.versusRANJIT SINGH

1999 INSC 7219 February 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Ranjit Singh, a stenographer of a High Court judge, forged a bail order that was never signed by the judge to obtain bail for an accused. He was convicted under IPC Sections 466 and 468 for making a false document and for forgery of a court record, while the Sessions Court granted him probation under Section 4 of the U

ROHIT SINGHAL AND ORS.versusPRINCIPAL, JA WAHAR N. VIDYALA YA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 55718 December 2002Disposed off

Five students from a rural background in Uttar Pradesh were admitted to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) and later migrated to a JNV in Kerala as per the scheme's national integration policy. They faced language and cultural difficulties, leading to alleged indiscipline and their discharge on disciplinary grounds. The

M/S. INDIA HOUSEversusKISHAN N. LALWANI

2002 INSC 55818 December 2002Dismissed

The respondent filed two revision petitions against a High Court order under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960, but applied for a certified copy of the order after the 30‑day limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time req

BEG RAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2002 INSC 55918 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a government order to lease sand mining rights on the Yamuna river bed for a term of three to five years. The appellant was initially granted a one‑year lease, which the Collector later extended by two years on the ground that the original lease should have been for a minimum of three

HINDUSTAN LEVER AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 64418 November 2003Dismissed

Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenged the levy of stamp duty by the State of Maharashtra on the High Court order sanctioning its amalgamation with Tata Oil Mills Ltd. The appellants argued that the order was a judicial decree, not an "instrument" under the Bombay Stamp Act, and that the State lacked constitutional competence

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusNIHAL SINGH

2002 INSC 39718 September 2002Disposed off

Nihal Singh, a life convict under Section 302 IPC, filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking classification as a Class‑B prisoner under para 576‑A of the Punjab Jail Manual, which provides facilities based on classification. The Single Judge declared the classification scheme ultra‑vires of Artic

S. SHANMUGAVEL NADARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2002 INSC 39918 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai's case merged into the Supreme Court's order of 10 September 1986, which dismissed appeals on the ground of non‑joinder of the State as a necessary party. The Court held that the Supreme Court order did not d

IN RE: NOISE POLLUTION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS FOR RESTRICTING USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS AND HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMSversus.

2005 INSC 29718 July 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by engineer Anil K. Mittal after a 13‑year‑old girl died because loudspeaker noise prevented her cries from being heard. The petition sought stringent enforcement of laws restricting loudspeakers, firecrackers, vehicular horns and other high‑volume sound system

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusPREMBAI PATEL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 21218 April 2005Disposed off

The driver of a goods truck insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd. died in an accident, and his family claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded Rs. 2,10,000 and directed the insurer to pay th

VIJA Y KUMAR MADAN AND ORS.versusR.N. GUPTA TECHINCAL EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

2002 INSC 21318 April 2002Disposed off

The plaintiffs, owners of a leasehold premises in Gurgaon, sued the defendants for recovery of rent arrears and ejectment. The defendants failed to appear on the scheduled date, leading the trial court to proceed ex-parte and later set aside the ex-parte order under Order 9 Rule 7, imposing a condition that the defenda

RANJEET SINGHversusRAVI PRAKASH

2004 INSC 18918 March 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The landlord, Ranjeet Singh, sought eviction of his tenant, Ravi Prakash, on the grounds of bonafide requirement for his own fertilizer business and the need to reconstruct the dilapidated shop after a municipal demolition notice. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed eviction. The tenant

SHALINIversusKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

2002 INSC 3318 January 2002Disposed off

Ms. S. Janani, a B.Sc. Home Science student, failed her April 2000 examination and applied for re‑evaluation within 20 days of the result but without the original detailed marks card (DMC). The university rejected the application, and after receiving the DMC on 6 Nov 2000 she re‑applied on 8 Nov 2000, was re‑evaluated

OM PRAKASH GUPTAversusRANBIR B. GOYAL

2002 INSC 3518 January 2002Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, was evicted by decree for non-payment of rent. He sought relief on the ground that a subsequent event – the Haryana Urban Development Authority's (HUDA) resumption proceedings against the landlord – had been set aside, claiming that this extinguished the landlord's title and amounted to evictio

MOHD. ABUBAKKAR SIDDIQUEversusMUSTAFA SHAHIDUL ISLAM AND ORS.

2000 INSC 2218 January 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Mohammed Idris Ali filed an election petition challenging the 1996 election of Mustafa Shahidul Islam to the Assam Legislative Assembly. He later applied to withdraw the petition under Section 109 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the withdrawal notice was published in the Official Gazette on 20 Septem

CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2004 INSC 72017 December 2004Disposed off

The petition sought a re‑consideration of the five‑Judge Constitution Bench decision in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, which held the Bombay Prevention of Ex‑communication Act, 1949 ultra‑vires. The matter had been listed before a seven‑Judge Bench, but the respondent filed an interim applicati

SHRI ASHOK TANWAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 72117 December 2004Dismissed

The Himachal Pradesh government sought to fill a vacancy for President of the State Consumer Redressal Commission by appointing a sitting High Court judge, Justice Surinder Swaroop. The government initially sent a proposal to the Chief Justice, but the High Court pointed out that the appointment process should be initi

SUSHILAversusIIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 55317 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlady Sushila purchased a shop in 1977 and sought its eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, to accommodate her married, unemployed son Prem Prakash who had an electrical‑wiring certificate and wanted to start a business. The tenant, Baij

BSES LTD.versusM/S. TATA POWER CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 56517 October 2003Dismissed

BSES Ltd., a distribution licensee, and Tata Power Co. Ltd. (TPC), a bulk licensee, disputed the amount BSES should pay for a 275 MVA standby power facility provided by TPC, which itself paid charges to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) for a 550 MVA standby capacity. The State Government had earlier direc

M.P. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 53217 September 2004

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association challenged a notification issued under Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 that abolished the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, alleging that the provision was ultra‑vires Article 323A, amounted to excessive delegation of legislative pow

M/S. M. SUBBARAO AND SONSversusYASHODAMMA AND ORS

2002 INSC 39417 September 2002Dismissed

The tenants (Mis. M. Subbarao & Sons) were ordered to vacate non‑residential premises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force on 31‑12‑2001, repealing the 1961 Act and containing a savings provision (Section 70). The tenants argued that, because the new Act did n

DR. SAURABH CHOUDHARY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 38117 May 2004

The Supreme Court was asked to clarify the effect of its earlier judgment in Dr. Saurabh Chaudhary (2003) which increased the All‑India quota for postgraduate medical seats from 25% to 50% and mandated a common entrance test. The Union of India sought a prospective application of that judgment because the admission pro

RAMINDER SINGH SETHIversusD. VIJAYARANGAM

2002 INSC 21117 April 2002Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant argued that the advance rent paid at the commencement of tenancy should be adjusted against the arrears, and that Section 18, which limits advance re

BANARSI AND ORS.versusRAM PHAL

2003 INSC 9417 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent Ram Phal sued for specific performance of a land sale agreement, while the appellants Banarsi et al. sued to cancel the agreement claiming it was a loan. The trial court denied specific performance, granting only a money decree and a conditional order for specific performance if the appellants failed to

RAMJI PATEL AND ORS.versusNAGRLK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK MANCH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 8417 February 2000

The Supreme Court heard Special Leave Petitions filed by dairy owners (including Ramji Patel) who had set up dairies in the villages of Lalpur and Gwarighat, which were earlier listed as "excepted villages" under the Madhya Pradesh Cattle (Control) Act, 1978. The petitioners argued that a municipal resolution dated 21‑

SMT. V. RAJESHWARIversusT.C. SARAVANABAVA

2003 INSC 72316 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a property measuring 1,817 sq. ft. after purchasing it. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title and pleaded adverse possession, but did not raise a defence of res judicata in the trial court or first appeal. The High Court, on a second appeal, hel

BHAIJIversusSUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THANDLA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 54016 December 2002Dismissed

The appellant, a member of an aboriginal tribe, purchased land from tribal bhumiswamis during the period covered by Section 1708 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. He failed to submit the required information within the prescribed two‑year period, prompting the Sub‑Divisional Officer to issue a show‑cause n

SANJEEV GUPTA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2004 INSC 64716 November 2004Dismissed

The case concerned Indian medical graduates who obtained their MBBS‑equivalent degrees from institutions in the former USSR and sought provisional or permanent registration to practice medicine in India. The petitioners argued that, under the pre‑amendment Indian Medical Council Act, they were entitled to registration

MITHAILAL DALSANGAR SINGH AND ORS.versusANNABAI DEVRAM KINI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 48416 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, three co‑plaintiffs, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. One plaintiff died, and his legal representatives applied for condonation of delay, setting aside the abatement of the suit and to be brought on record. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the application, finding suf

HARISH VERMA AND ORS.versusAJAY SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 48516 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

In-service doctors employed by the State of Rajasthan challenged the first proviso of Regulation 9 of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, which fixed a minimum qualifying mark of 50% for general candidates and 40% for reserved categories for admission to postgraduate medical courses. The Rajasthan Hi

MR. FAZALUR REHMAN AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1999 INSC 41116 September 1999Disposed off

Petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Uttar Pradesh Government's failure to act on the Parekh Commission Report on the 1982 Meerut riots, which had been submitted in 1988. The State Cabinet eventually decided to table the report, not take any further action, and consign it to records, citin

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.versusVALSALA K. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1999 INSC 41216 September 1999Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether the 1995 amendment to Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which increased compensation amounts and interest rates, applied to claims arising from accidents that occurred before the amendment’s effective date of 15 September 1995. Relying on the earlier decisio

PADMASINGHJI BAJIRAO PATIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 41316 September 1999Dismissed

Padmasinhji Bajirao Patil and others challenged the constitutional validity of Section 144‑T of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, which makes the order of the Commissioner or a specified officer in election disputes final and conclusive with no provision for appeal or revision. The petitioners argued th

HARDEEPversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 33816 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Hardeep and his father Maha Singh were charged with the murder of Rajinder Singh. The trial court convicted Hardeep under IPC 304 Part I and acquitted Maha Singh, while the High Court upheld Hardeep's conviction, upgraded it to IPC 302, and retained the father's acquittal. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the cred

SUBBEGOWDA (DEAD) BY LR.versusTHIMMEGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS.

2004 INSC 27716 April 2004Dismissed

Thimmegowda, having no male issue, adopted his nephew Narayani and executed a settlement deed on 1 August 1969 entrusting six agricultural properties to Narayani and his natural father Subbegowda for management, subject to a clause reserving the power of revocation to Thimmegowda. Thimmegowda later sued to set aside th

MAHESHWARI FISH SEED FARMversusT. NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

2004 INSC 27816 April 2004Dismissed

The appellants, owners of fish seed farms engaged in pisciculture, claimed that the Tamil Nadu government’s 1990 notification granting free low‑tension electricity to "agriculture" also covered their fish‑farming activities. The respondents, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, denied the claim, holding that pisciculture is n

UNION OF INDIAversusTECCO TRICHY ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS

2005 INSC 14716 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India (Southern Railway) entered into a construction contract with TECCO Trichy Engineers, which later gave rise to arbitration. The arbitral tribunal delivered a copy of its award to the General Manager's office on 12 March 2001, but the Chief Engineer, who signed the contract and represented the Railways

THIAGARAJAN AND ORS.versusSRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17616 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over ancestral A and B Schedule properties, claiming inheritance rights. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed it, finding the appellants entitled to the properties. The respondents appealed to the Madras H

SHRI BHAGWAN LAL ARYAversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17316 March 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, a constable in the Delhi Police, fell ill during training and, on medical advice, went to his hometown for treatment, submitting leave applications supported by medical certificates. The competent authority later sanctioned leave without pay for the period of his illness, but the police department issued

NARAYANANversusKUMARAN AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17416 March 2004Dismissed

The appellant Narayanan (vendee) purchased a disputed parcel of land that the owner Kunjan had retained despite executing a settlement deed for his daughters. The first respondent Kumaran, a close relative, fraudulently altered the deed's schedule to claim title over the disputed parcel and sued for a permanent injunct

AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD.versusGUJARAT INNS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17216 March 2004Dismissed

The respondents, who purchased urban properties at auction under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and under the Official Liquidator in winding‑up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, sought fresh electricity connections for those premises. The appellant, Gujarat Electricity Board, demanded

KRISHNA PILLAI RAJASEKHARAN NAIR (D) BY LRS.versusPADMANABHA PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 72015 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a non‑redeeming co‑mortgagor, claimed a 9/12 share in a jointly owned mortgaged property and sought declaration of title, possession, or partition after another co‑mortgagor fully redeemed the mortgage and took possession. The trial court and first appellate court decreed partition, ordering the appellan

RAME GOWDA (D) BY LRS.versusM. VARADAPPA NAIDU (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 71815 December 2003Dismissed

The plaintiff, Rame Gowda, was in peaceful possession of a piece of land and began construction, which the defendant, M.V. Naidoo, contested claiming ownership. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession; although he could not prove title, the trial court found he had settled possession and gran

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 60615 December 2000Dismissed

The President, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, established a permanent bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and defined its territorial jurisdiction over eleven districts, while retaining a discretionary power to transfer cases to the principal seat at Jodhpur. The Acting Chief Justice later issued an

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusPUNJAB SINGH AND ANR.

2003 INSC 47815 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab Singh was granted a Freedom Fighters Pension under the 1972 scheme, but the pension was suspended when his income exceeded the Rs.5,000 ceiling. The Government later introduced the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in 1980, removing the income ceiling and granting him a fresh pension effective 1 August 19

BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADAversusGOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA

2003 INSC 1415 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (B.C. Bhutada) let the first floor of a building for residential use and part of the ground floor for non‑residential use to the tenant (G.R. Mundada), who also used a portion as a godown. The landlord sought eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 on the ground o

A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANR.versusS. NARSAGOUD

2003 INSC 1715 January 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a conductor employed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was removed from service for two periods of unauthorized absence in 1982 and 1992. He raised a dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Court reinstated him with continuity of service but w

LIMBAJI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2001 INSC 61114 December 2001Case Partly allowed

The appellants Limbaji and two others were charged with murder and robbery of Baburao, whose ornaments were recovered after the accused, while in custody, pointed to their locations. The High Court had convicted them of both murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and robbery (Sec. 394 IPC) using the presumption under Section 114(a) of

M/S COROMANDAL FERTILISERS LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

1999 INSC 55914 December 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd imported rock phosphate and sulphur and was responsible for unloading the cargo at its own wharf in Visakhapatnam. Customs assessed landing charges at 1.4% of the CIF value of the goods and the Assistant Collector additionally levied stevedoring charges, arguing they were not covered by t

DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC.versusDR. H.R. PREM SACHDEVA AND ORS. ETC.

1999 INSC 47814 October 1999Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Dentist Act, 1948 and the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 to determine the permissible duration of a Dental Council member's term when elections are not held within the prescribed five‑year period. Section 6(1) states that a member holds office for five years

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.versusM/S. SHIVALIK AGRO POLY PRODUCTS AND ORS.

2004 INSC 52014 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, Mis. Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd. and others, were allotted an industrial plot and, to secure loans, executed a mortgage deed that required payment of stamp duty and registration fees as per a Himachal Pradesh Government notification under Sections 78 and 79 of the Registration Act. They sued to dec

RAMILABEN HASMUKHBHAI KHRISTI AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2002 INSC 33614 August 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The victim, Pragnesh Kumar, died from severe burns after allegedly being attacked by a group of accused. Four dying declarations were recorded by a medical officer, a police sub‑inspector and two executive magistrates, none of which were accompanied by a medical certificate confirming the victim's mental fitness. The s

GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYSversusRUDHAN SINGH

2005 INSC 29214 July 2005Case Partly allowed

The respondent, Rudhan Singh, was employed on a daily‑wage, class IV basis by Haryana Roadways from 16 March 1988 to 28 February 1989 with intermittent breaks. His services were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation and he later demanded reinstatement. The State Government referred the dispute to the I

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusSUKHWINDER SINGH

2005 INSC 29314 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Constable Sukhwinder Singh, was discharged under Punjab Police Rule 12.21 after unauthorised absence, and he sued for a declaration that the discharge was illegal because it was punitive and made without a formal inquiry. The High Court held the discharge was punishment requiring a departmental inquiry

ANIL BALUNIversusSURENDRA SINGH NEGI

2005 INSC 29414 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Election Commission notified elections for the Uttaranchal Legislative Assembly and the appellant, Anil Baluni, filed four sets of nomination papers on 22 January 2002 along with Forms A and B of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Returning Officer later rejected the papers, claiming

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusTHE JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

2003 INSC 8514 February 2003Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought to convert Jalgaon Municipal Council into a Municipal Corporation after the 2001 provisional census showed the urban population exceeded three lakh. The High Court quashed the conversion notifications on four grounds: an alleged unconstitutional hiatus, reliance on provisional population

MAM CHAND PALversusSMT. SHANTI AGARWAL

2002 INSC 8214 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between tenant M.C. Pal and landlady Smt. Shanti Agarwal concerning eviction under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972. The key question was the meaning of "date of first hearing" for the purpose of Section 20(4), which shields a tenant from eviction

NIRMA LTD.versusM/S. LURGI LENTJES ENERGIETECHNIK GHBH AND ANR.

2002 INSC 2314 January 2002Dismissed

Nirma Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution seeking to appeal an order of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which had decided an appeal under sub‑section (2) of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition raised the question of whether a second appeal is bar

R. KAPILNATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusKRISHNA

2002 INSC 53613 December 2002Dismissed

The tenant (R. Kapilnath, deceased, through LRs) occupied a house owned by a temple and paid rent to the temple's pujari, Krishna, who filed an eviction suit under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Munsif Court granted eviction under clause (p) of Section 21(1) but not clause (h); the decision was upheld by the

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 54213 October 2003Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh enhanced the royalty payable on coal and sought recovery of the differential amount from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (the Coalfields) and the ultimate consumers. The Coalfields, bound by their mining lease and Mineral Concession Rules, were required to pay simple interest of 24% on delayed

RATTAN DEVversusPASAM DEVI

2002 INSC 38513 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Rattan Dev filed a suit for a permanent injunction which was decreed by the trial court. The defendant appealed and the first appellate court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not appear as a witness and an adverse inference was drawn. Rattan Dev filed a second appeal under S

SAMPATH KUMARversusAYYAKANNU AND ANR.

2002 INSC 38613 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit in 1988 for a permanent injunction over agricultural land. In 1999, before trial commenced, he sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to add relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession, alleging dispossession by the defendant in 1989. The trial court and t

RITA LALversusRAJ KUMAR SINGH

2002 INSC 38713 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widow who had undergone a kidney transplant, filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, alleging that the respondent, her employee, occupied the premises as a tenant and was in arrears. The respondent sought leave to defend, denying

BALVANT N. VISWAMITRA AND ORS.versusYADAV SADASHIV MULE (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44613 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Balvant N. Viswamitra, sued the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased tenant for possession of land after the tenant defaulted on rent. The landlord attempted service of notice by registered post, certificate of posting and affixing it on the premises, but could not obtain the heirs' names and add

SINGER INDIA LTD.versusCHANDER MOHAN CHADHA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44713 August 2004Dismissed

The landlord sued Singer India Ltd for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the American tenant had transferred possession to the Indian company without the landlord's written consent. The transfer resulted from a court‑sanctioned amalgamation compelled by a Reserve Bank of India

MAHADEORAO SUKAJI SHIVANKARversusRAMARATAN BAPU AND ORS.

2004 INSC 44813 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1999 election for the Amgaon Legislative Constituency, the appellant was declared elected and the defeated respondent filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging corrupt practices such as unaccounted money and distribution of goods. The appellant moved the High Court unde

DR. CHIRANJI LAL (D) BY LRS.versusHARI DAS (D) BY LRS.

2005 INSC 27913 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit, a final decree was passed on 7 August 1981 but was not engrossed on stamp paper until the respondents furnished the required stamp papers on 25 May 1982. The appellant filed an execution application on 21 March 1994, arguing that it was barred by the 12‑year limitation period under Article 136 of t

SANJEEV BHATNAGARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28113 May 2005Dismissed

Sanjeev Bhatnagar, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to the Union of India to delete the word “Sindh” from the National Anthem, arguing that Sindh is no longer part of India after Partition. The petition, previously dismissed, was re‑filed and opposed by several Sindhi organisation

DAROGA SINGH AND ORS.versusB.K. PANDEY

2004 INSC 26313 April 2004Dismissed

The case arose from an incident on 18 November 1997 in Bhagalpur where police officers, not in uniform and armed with lathis, forcibly entered the courtroom and chambers of Additional District and Sessions Judge D.N. Barai, assaulting him, court staff and lawyers while demanding the unconditional release of an investig

HARI SHANKAR PRASADversusSHAHID ALI KHAN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 18013 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

In the 2000 Bihar Assembly election for Sitamarhi, petitioner Hari Shankar Prasad lost to Shahid Ali Khan by 35 votes. The Returning Officer rejected 90 ballot papers marked with a distinguishing‑mark stamp, deeming them invalid, despite a directive from the Election Commission that such ballots should be counted if th

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. JANKI DEVI PAL

2003 INSC 8313 February 2003Dismissed

In 1995 Janki Devi Pal was elected Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Complaints against her led the State Government to order a preliminary inquiry under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat (Removal of Pramukhs, Up‑Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 19

JAMSHED HORMUSJI WADIAversusBOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF MUMBAI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 3313 January 2004Disposed off

The Bombay Port Trust (BPT), an instrumentality of the State, engaged consultants to value its land and proposed a massive rent revision for its lessees, issuing notices of termination and higher rent. Lessees challenged the revision as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, leading a Single Judge to strike down the no

ATMA S. BERARversusMUKHTIAR SINGH

2002 INSC 53312 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, a retired Indian Revenue Service officer, constructed a house in Moga and later let part of it to the tenant. After a decade he sought eviction on the ground of needing the premises for his own occupation because of age, health and lack of alternative residence. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Autho

AKHILESHWAR KUMAR AND ORS.versusMUSTAQIM AND ORS.

2002 INSC 53412 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Four siblings purchased a commercial premises to start their own businesses, particularly plaintiff No. I who intended to run a clothing shop. The premises were occupied by the respondents as tenants. The trial court, applying Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act, 1882, held that

PRADYUT BORDOLOIversusSWAPAN ROY

2000 INSC 58712 December 2000Dismissed

Pradyut Bordoloi, a Clerk Grade‑I in Coal India Ltd., filed his nomination for the Margherita Legislative Assembly seat. A complaint alleged that his employment constituted an "office of profit" under the Government of India, invoking disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Re

P.A. INAMDAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 35812 August 2005Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the extent to which State governments may regulate admissions, fee structures, and quota allocations in unaided professional educational institutions, both minority and non‑minority, following the earlier decisions in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy. It held that while the State may

SARBANANDA SONOWALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 28712 July 2005

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) and its 1984 Rules, which were applicable only to Assam for detecting and deporting illegal migrants. The Court held that the Act and Rules were ultra‑vi

RIZWAN AHMED JAVED SHAIKH AND ORS.versusJAMMAL PATEL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 28112 May 2001Dismissed

The appellants filed a complaint alleging that police officers, who had arrested and detained them, failed to produce them before a magistrate within 24 hours and beat them while in custody. The magistrate, relying on a Maharashtra Government notification under Section 197(3) of the CrPC, discharged the officers on the

RAICHURMATHAM PRABHAKAR AND ANR.versusRAWATMAL DUGAR

2004 INSC 25812 April 2004Dismissed

The landlord sought possession of two shop premises to demolish and reconstruct them under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. After the landlord completed the work, he offered the rebuilt premises back to the tenants at a higher rent, but the tenants filed execution

KANNIAMMALversusCHELLARAM

2002 INSC 19612 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The landlady, who occupied a portion of a building for residential use, leased another portion to a tenant for non‑residential purposes. She sought eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to start her s

MOHAN LAL AGGARWALversusATINDER MOHAN KHOSLA

2004 INSC 16812 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant, which was upheld by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority. The landlord then sought revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, but a single High Court judge dismissed the revision. The tenant filed a review pe

PRAKASH KUMAR @ PRAKASH BHUTTOversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2005 INSC 2712 January 2005Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether a confession recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) remains admissible for offences under other statutes when the accused is acquitted of TADA charges but tried together with those offences under Section 12. The Court held th

MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR AND ORS.versusGOURANGA CHANDRA DEY AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2912 January 2005Disposed off

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 12 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 alleging non‑payment of rent and a bona‑fide requirement. The Rent Control Court found the tenants in arrears and ordered eviction; the tenants’ appeal under Section 20 was dismissed by the Civil Judge b

STATE OF ORISSAversusSHRI B.K. ROUTRAY

1999 INSC 812 January 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa appealed an arbitral award that granted interest for the pre‑reference period of 31‑Mar‑1977 to 20‑Mar‑1980, a period that preceded the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978. The award was made on 12‑Oct‑1982, after the Act had come into force, raising the question whether the arbitrator could awar

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusMANGALAM TIMBER PRODUCTS LTD. ETC.

2003 INSC 62511 November 2003Dismissed

The State of Orissa, through its industrial policy, promised Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. a fixed price for raw material, inducing the company to set up an industry in the state. Later the State attempted to retrospectively revise the royalty rate and raw material price, backdating the change. The Orissa High Court st

JAYANTIBHAI BHENKARBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2002 INSC 37811 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Nine persons were charged with murder and related offences arising from a 1989 assault in Singpur, Gujarat. The appellant, Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai, claimed an alibi, asserting he was in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar attending legal proceedings on the day of the incident. The trial and High Courts rejected his alibi, convic

BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR.versusKAMAL ABROL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 27311 May 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal concerning the allotment of a LPG dealership in Kangra district, Himachal Pradesh. The eligibility notice required the applicant to be a "resident" of Kangra, but the respondent argued that her marital connection to a husband owning property there satisfied the criterion. The trial

ACHAL MISRAversusRAMA SHANKER SINGH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 19611 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (Achal Misra) sought to set aside orders of allotment of two floors of a building to tenants under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, arguing that the earlier declaration of vacancy was erroneous and that the High Court erred in holding that the vacancy

RAJ KUMAR YADAVversusSAMIR KUMAR MAHASETH AND ORS

2005 INSC 13011 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

An election petition was presented to the designated election judge of the Patna High Court at 4:25 pm on the last day of the 45‑day limitation period, after the judge had retired from open court but was still in chambers. The judge refused to accept the petition, citing High Court Rules that required presentation only

VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2005 INSC 13511 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd., the lessor of a lease that expired on 24 June 1984, served a notice to the lessee demanding vacant possession and filed a suit for eviction on 16 April 1984, twelve weeks before the lease term ended. The defendant argued that the suit was premature and not maintainable. The High Court Single Judge

BOLIN CHETIAversusJOGADISH BHUYAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 13611 March 2005

Bolin Chetia, a losing candidate in the Assam Legislative Assembly election, appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 after his election petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Court considered whether a statutory first appeal of right must automatically be ad

IQBAL SINGH MARWAHversusMEENAKSHI ETC.

2005 INSC 12911 March 2005Dismissed

The appellant filed a probate suit seeking probate of a will, which the respondents alleged was forged and filed a criminal complaint under various IPC sections. The trial court dismissed the complaint invoking the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). On revision, the Sessions Court

MADHAV M. BHOKARIKARversusGANESH M. BHOKARIKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2004 INSC 16311 March 2004Dismissed

Madhav Mareshwar Bhokarikar, a practising advocate, obtained a dealership for petroleum products and later entered into a partnership with his brother, remaining a sleeping partner. The State Bar Council, after finding him guilty of professional misconduct under s.35(3)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, suspended his lice

PIEDADE FILOMENA GONSALVESversusSTATE OF GOA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 16511 March 2004Dismissed

The appellant, Pied Ade Filomena Gonsalves, replaced a thatched-roof beach structure with a pucca building on her property in Colva, Goa, between 13-17 July 1994. Two writ petitions were filed: a neighbor’s petition (CWP 76/1995) seeking demolition of the new building, and the appellant’s petition (CWP 237/1999) seekin

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