Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

R F NARIMAN

278 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 201–278.

UNION OF JNDIA & ORS.versusBENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED &ANR.

2017 INSC 10847 November 2017Disposed off

The Union of India (lessee) and Bengal Shrchi Housing Development Limited (lessor) entered into a three‑year lease for commercial premises. Dispute arose over who should pay service tax on the lease. The High Court held the lessee liable, but the Division Bench reversed, holding the lessor liable based on the Service T

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI.

2015 INSC 3917 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Servo‑Med Industries bought bulk disposable syringes and needles, sterilised them, packed them in branded pouches and sold them. The Central Excise Department issued a show‑cause notice demanding additional excise duty, contending that sterilisation transformed the articles into a new commodity. The Tribunal held that

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION & ANR.versusM/S OCI CORPORATION & ANR.

2018 INSC 1137 February 2018Dismissed

The appellants sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award in Gujarat High Court, which ordered enforcement. They then challenged the order by filing an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, arguing that an appeal was permissible even though Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doe

UNION OF INDIAversusRELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ANR.

2020 INSC 77 January 2020Dismissed

The Union of India sought to retain Rs.134.66 crore that it had encashed from bank guarantees of Reliance Communication Ltd (RCL) and Reliance Telecom Ltd (RTL) after they failed to pay deferred spectrum charges of Rs.774.25 crore. The respondents furnished fresh bank guarantees for the same amount and petitioned the T

SOURABH BRALA AND ORversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 12186 December 2018Directions issued

A group of 150 first‑year MBBS students filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking transfer from Respondent No. 5 College, which had not obtained the necessary approvals, to another college so that they could sit for their examinations. The State Government of Uttarakhand offered to take over the college, its infra

VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 6396 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a licensed drug manufacturer, challenged an order of blacklisting issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 8 September 2009, alleging that it had never supplied the disputed veterinary injection under the tender and that the show‑cause notice did not specifically propose blacklisting. The

MAJ. AMOD KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 7956 September 2018Dismissed

The petitioners, officers and a sepoy of the Army Service Corps (ASC), challenged posting orders that assigned them to operational units, arguing that the ASC is a non‑operational corps as held in Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary and that such postings violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21

AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLCversusFUTURE RETAIL LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 3856 August 2021Disposed off

Amazon invested in FCPL and, through it, in Future Retail Ltd (FRL). When FRL and its promoters attempted to sell FRL's retail assets to a rival, Amazon sought emergency interim relief under the SIAC Rules, and an Emergency Arbitrator issued an award restraining the transaction. The Delhi High Court enforced the award

BANK EMPLOYEES UNIONversusRAJARSHI SHAHU GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLHAPUR

2021 INSC 3226 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The original standing order of a co‑operative bank fixed the retirement age at 55 years. Two settlements, dated 11‑01‑2004 and 21‑02‑2010 and sanctioned by an award of the Industrial Court, raised the retirement age to 58 years. The Bank Employees Union, a registered trade union, filed an application under Section 38(2

ALKA CHANDEWARversusSHAMSHUL ISHRAR KHAN

2017 INSC 5936 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The sole arbitrator, on 7 October 2010, issued an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prohibiting the disposal of any flats without its leave. The respondent transferred five flats on 14 October 2010, breaching that order, and the arbitrator later found the breach and, on 5 May

BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.versusARUN KUMAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3916 May 2020Disposed off

The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) conducted a Graduate Level Combined Examination for 1,569 Class III vacancies, which later increased to 3,285. After objections to model answers, BSSC appointed an expert committee whose report led to revisions and the filing of writ petitions. The Patna High Court, first thr

SHITAL FIBERS LTD.versusINDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED

2021 INSC 2286 April 2021Dismissed

Shital Fibers Ltd. (appellant) sought to avoid a winding‑up petition filed by Indian Acrylics Ltd. (respondent) under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging inability to pay an admitted debt of Rs 8,92,723. The respondent claimed the debt arose from supply of raw material, while the appellant contend

SANJIV PRAKASHversusSEEMA KUKREJA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 2296 April 2021Disposed off

The appellant, Sanjiv Prakash, invoked an arbitration clause in a 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among family members after a dispute over share transfers with his sister and mother. The respondents argued that the MoU was superseded and novated by a later Shareholders' Agreement (SHA) dated 12‑04‑1996, which t

RITHWIK ENERGY GENERATION PVT. LTD.versusBANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 1086 February 2018Dismissed

Rithwik Energy Generation Pvt Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd (BESCOM). The State Commission refused to approve the PPA, leading the appellant to seek a declaration that the PPA was invalid. During the pendency of appeals, the appellant sent a letter dated 5 Ma

CHHABILDASversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2018 INSC 1066 February 2018Disposed off

The appellant's land was reserved for a primary school under a development plan and a purchase notice was served under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The State Government confirmed the notice and the appropriate authority filed an acquisition proposal within the period prescribed by Sec

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 2655 December 2019Directions issued

The Supreme Court was asked to decide the validity of Rule 5 of the 1997 Central Excise Rules, which was challenged on the grounds of being ultra vires of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench, however, diverted attention to a different issue concerning

NABHA POWER LIMITED (NPL)versusPUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (PSPCL) & ANR.

2017 INSC 10085 October 2017Case Partly allowed

Nabha Power Ltd (NPL) entered into a 25‑year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL) for a 1200 MW plant under a fuel‑specific, pre‑identified site procurement route. The PPA’s energy‑charge formula required the cost of purchasing, transporting and unloading coal "to and at the pr

M/S MAYAVTI TRADING PVT. LTD.versusPRADYUAT DEB BURMAN

2019 INSC 10085 September 2019Dismissed

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, introduced by the 2015 amendment and later omitted by the 2019 amendment. The appellant argued that the Supreme Court or High Court must still examine the existence of an arbitration agreement before appointing arbi

SAMAR KUMAR ROY (D) THROUGH LR (MOTHER)versusJHARNA BERA

2017 INSC 8605 September 2017Disposed off

Samar Kumar Roy filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (and Section 38 for injunction) seeking a declaration that his alleged marriage under the Special Marriage Act was void. The plaintiff died during the proceedings and his mother was substituted as his legal representative under Order 22 Rule

M/S EXL CAREERS AND ANOTHERversusFRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

2020 INSC 4775 August 2020Disposed off

The appellant, EXL Careers, filed a suit for recovery in a Gurgaon civil court despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a franchise agreement that designated Delhi courts as the sole forum. The Gurgaon court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the High Court ordered its transfer to Delhi, dir

GANGADHAR ALIAS GANGARAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2020 INSC 4785 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 8C read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for the recovery of 48 kg of cannabis from a house that the trial court deemed his based on a 2008 voters list. He contended that he had sold the house to a co‑accused on 12 June 2009 and produced the sale agreement, which the p

KUMARANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 4475 May 2017Dismissed

The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was ordered to pay Rs.2.75 lakh as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a default imprisonment of one month for non‑payment. He served both the principal sentence and the default imprisonment, after

HARI SHANKAR SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P.

2017 INSC 3135 April 2017Case Partly allowed

A land dispute in Mamkhor village led to a scuffle on 11 July 1992 during which accused Hari Shankar Shukla retrieved a country-made pistol and fired a bullet that killed Umesh Shukla and attempted to kill Savitri Devi. The trial court acquitted all three accused, finding the eyewitness accounts contradictory and quest

HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED (H.Z.L.)versusAJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

2019 INSC 13194 December 2019Disposed off

Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL) operates four units and a captive power plant, and entered into open‑access agreements with Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (AVVNL) for wheeling power to three of its units. A dispute arose over unscheduled interchange (UI) charges under clauses 8 and 9 of the agreements. The Rajasthan Electr

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ANR.versusPRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

2018 INSC 11514 December 2018Disposed off

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued a tender for water meters, which was accepted and a contract containing a clause stating "No Arbitration is allowed" was executed. The respondent filed a Section 9 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an injunction, and the High Court ap

ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.

2018 INSC 9354 October 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the eligibility of ArcelorMittal India Private Ltd (AMIPL) and Numetal Ltd to submit resolution plans for Essar Steel India Ltd (ESIL) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the introduction of Section 29A. The Court held that disqualification under sub‑clause (c) of Section 29A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusBALBIR SINGH MAINI

2017 INSC 10024 October 2017Dismissed

The respondents, members of a cooperative housing society, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with developers to develop 21.2 acres of land. Only two instalments were paid and 7.7 acres were conveyed, for which capital gains tax was paid. The Assessing Officer and the ITAT treated the unreceived considera

DUSHYANT N. DALAL AND ANOTHERversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2017 INSC 10044 October 2017Disposed off

The petitioners, Dushyant N. Dalal and his wife, were ordered by SEBI to disgorge unlawful gains of Rs.4.05 crore and pay a penalty of Rs.6 crore, with a debarment of seven years if unpaid. They challenged the SEBI order, arguing that interest could not be levied retrospectively under Section 28A of the SEBI Act and th

RASHID RAZAversusSADAF AKHTAR

2019 INSC 10024 September 2019Disposed off

The case arose from a partnership dispute in which one partner lodged an FIR alleging siphoning of funds and other improprieties. The appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration clause in the partnership de

R.K. ROJAversusU.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 4914 July 2016

R.K. Roja was elected to the Nagiri Assembly Constituency and a respondent filed an election petition challenging her election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to have the petition rejected, first as a counter‑affidavit and later as a formal application. The High Court declined to

AVINASH C. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2018 INSC 3034 April 2018Disposed off

The case arose from the Karnataka Public Service Commission's (KPSC) selection for Group ‘A’ and ‘D’ posts, where allegations of bribery and irregularities in examinations and interviews led to an FIR against KPSC officials. After a CID interim report, the Karnataka Government ordered the annulment of the written exami

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.versusRAVINDRANATH RAO SINDHIA & ANR.

2021 INSC 1524 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. appointed Ravindranath Rao Sindhia and Indumathi Sindhia, U.S. nationals, as distributors under a sole proprietorship agreement. The respondents filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, and the Delhi Hi

INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAversusRESERVE BANK OF INDIA

2020 INSC 2644 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a Statement and a Circular in April 2018 directing banks and other regulated entities to cease dealing with persons or entities dealing in virtual currencies (VCs) and to exit existing relationships within three months. The petitioners – a trade association and several cryptocurre

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusGOPALDAS BHAGWAN DAS & ORS.

2020 INSC 1274 February 2020Dismissed

The Union requisitioned land in Malad, Mumbai in 1943 for defence purposes, partially de‑requisitioned in 1949, and later issued a Section 4(1) notification in 1975 acquiring the remaining portion, with a declaration in 1978 and a draft award in 1986. The respondents filed a writ petition in 2002 alleging that the stat

TEK SINGHversusSHASHI VERMA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 1314 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to grant an interim mandatory injunction in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act concerning possession of a shop. The High Court set aside the appellate court's findings of fact and entertained the revision, despite the order bei

ISHWARI LAL YADAVversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2019 INSC 11153 October 2019Disposed off

The case involved the gruesome murder of a two‑year‑old boy, Chirag, whose body was discovered in two parts inside the house of the main accused, Ishwari Lal Yadav and Kiran Bai, who claimed to be tantriks. The accused confessed to killing the child as a human sacrifice, and the confession was corroborated by independe

ISHWARI LAL YADAV & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2019 INSC 11153 October 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellants, self‑styled "tantriks", were accused of kidnapping and murdering two children – a six‑year‑old girl (Ku. Manisha) and a boy (Chirag Rajput) – for human‑sacrifice rituals. The prosecution relied on skeletal remains, DNA/FSL reports, identification of clothing by the parents, and confessional statements m

RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2019 INSC 11163 October 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a 13‑year‑old girl and of destroying her body. The prosecution proved the case through a chain of circumstantial evidence corroborated by DNA, medical and forensic findings, including a slipper belonging to the victim recovered from the accused. The trial

RAVI S/O ASHOK GHUMAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019 INSC 11143 October 2019Disposed off

The appellant was found with a two‑year‑old girl under his bed after the child went missing; medical, eye‑witness, circumstantial and Y‑STR DNA evidence established that he kidnapped, raped (vaginal and unnatural intercourse) and murdered the child. The trial court and High Court convicted him under IPC sections 302, 3

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusCALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED

2019 INSC 11113 October 2019Disposed off

The Calcutta Club, a Section 25 company operating as a members' club, was served with a notice for non‑payment of sales tax on food and drinks supplied to its permanent members. The Club argued that, under the doctrine of mutuality, no sale occurred because the supplier and the buyer were the same persons, a view uphel

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.versusCOMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 9973 September 2019Dismissed

The appellant Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd challenged an order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal which had found a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission alleged that Uber paid drivers incentives that caused a loss of Rs 204 per trip, amounting to predatory pric

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusBALWANT SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 9963 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against judgments that applied the Madishetti Bala Ramul decision, which interprets the Land Acquisition Act, to disputes under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Supreme Court examined whether the award under the Land Acquisition Act, deemed a government offer under Section 25, could be c

HYUNDAI CORPORATION & ANR.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORAUON LTD.

2017 INSC 7023 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Hyundai Corporation entered into a contract with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) for offshore oil exploration, which contained Clause 13.2.8 (sub‑contractor liability) and Clause 17.3 (indemnity for costs arising from a change of law). A change in Indian tax law – Section 44BB/4488 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 –

ADESH KAURversusEICHER MOTORS LIMITED AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5713 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Adesh Kaur, owned 903 equity shares in Eicher Motors Ltd. In 2012, an impersonator forged her signature, obtained a change of address from the company's share transfer agent (respondent No. 2) and secured duplicate share certificates, which were then transferred to a third party (respondent No. 8). Upon

SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMUversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

2020 INSC 4123 June 2020Disposed off

The case concerns the abduction, extortion and murder of former MLA M.K. Balan, whose body was cremated under a fictitious name. The prosecution relied on extensive circumstantial evidence, the testimony of two accomplices (PW10 and PW11), recoveries of vehicles, a false death certificate, and statements recorded under

SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018 INSC 753 April 2018Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered the use of videography at crime scenes as a tool to improve criminal investigations. Submissions highlighted international practice, the benefits of body‑worn cameras, and the need for safeguards under evidentiary law. The Court examined prior judgments on electronic evidence and the admiss

N. SUBRAMANIANversusM/S ARUNA HOTELS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 1443 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former employee of Aruna Hotels Ltd., claimed arrears of salary of Rs 1.87 crore for the period 1998‑2013 and filed a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 21 July 2017. The company contended that the claim was time‑barred. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admi

PARAMVIR SINGH SAINIversusBALJIT SINGH & ORS.

2020 INSC 6722 December 2020Directions issued

In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court revisited its earlier directions (April 3, 2018) requiring the use of photography and videography at crime scenes. The Court noted that compliance affidavits filed by 14 States and 2 Union Territories were inadequate, lacking details on the exact locatio

SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 6712 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (husband, father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law) were convicted under Section 304B IPC for dowry death based on a claim that the deceased was poisoned after demanding Rs 10 lakhs. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of a dowry death – marriage within seven years,

M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANRversusPRASAD VASSUDEV KENI, ETC. ETC

2020 INSC 5312 September 2020Disposed off

The appellants, M/s Bande\u200bkar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., were in a business dispute with the respondents and filed civil suits, after which they lodged criminal complaints alleging false evidence and forged debit notes under IPC sections 191, 192 and 193. The magistrate converted these complaints into private complaints

VASHDEO R BHOJWANIversusABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ANR.

2019 INSC 9842 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant claimed a default of Rs 6.7 crore against the respondent, which was declared a non‑performing asset in 1999 and a recovery certificate was issued in 2001. A petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was filed in 2017, and the NCLT admitted it on the ground that the default was continu

NEERAJ GARGversusSARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC.

2021 INSC 3702 August 2021Disposed off

The appellant, a senior advocate, challenged several disparaging remarks made by a High Court judge against him in four separate cases where he represented a party. The judge's comments criticized the counsel's conduct without giving him an opportunity to be heard, and the remarks were deemed unnecessary for the adjudi

BANKA SNEHA SHEELAversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2021 INSC 3712 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners challenged a preventive detention order issued under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 against the detenu, who was accused in five FIRs for cheating amounting to over Rs. 50 lakh. The State argued that the detenu's alleged activities threatened public order and that bail had bee

COL. RAJNISH BHANDARI, VSMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 8572 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Col. Rajnish Bhandari appealed against the Union of India challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the continuation of prosecution under Section 63 of the Army Act after an acquittal subject to confirmation. The Court, relying on the Joseph Shine judgment, held that Section 49

M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC.versusHINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

2020 INSC 4112 June 2020Disposed off

Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc., a US corporation, contracted with Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL) for the sale of copper concentrate and included a two‑tier arbitration clause: first arbitration in India, with a right to appeal to an ICC arbitration in London. After an Indian arbitrator gave a nil award, the parties pr

DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 4572 April 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, led by Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2017 which introduced sections 35AA and 35AB, and contended that the RBI circular of 12‑02‑2018 directing banks and NBFCs to resolve stressed assets within six months was ultra vi

SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2021 INSC 1362 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shivaji Chintappa Patil, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for the death of his wife, who the prosecution alleged was killed after being abused for not obtaining money from her mother. The case hinged on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's alleged motive, the lack of a detailed

BENGAL CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSN.versusKALYAN CHOWDHURY

2018 INSC 912 February 2018Dismissed

Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. appealed against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that dismissed its appeal as not maintainable because it was filed nine days after the initial 45‑day limitation period and after the additional 45‑day grace period had also expired. The appellant argued t

M/S. K. LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANYversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2017 INSC 10711 November 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. K. Lakshmanya & Co., a partnership, paid interest under Sections 234(A)-(C) for assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and applied to the Settlement Commission to have that interest waived. The Commission, relying on a CBDT circular, partially waived the interest, after which the Assessing Officer refused to grant i

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.versusGRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.

2019 INSC 11081 October 2019

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others challenged the allotment of a parcel of land (Survey No. 129/45/D) to Andhra Prabha Publications under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. A Single Judge ordered a survey to determine the true identity of the land; the High Court set aside that order, but the S

MANOHARANversusSTATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARIETY HALL POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE

2019 INSC 8511 August 2019Disposed off

Manoharan was convicted for kidnapping, gang‑rape of a 10‑year‑old girl and the murder of the girl and her 7‑year‑old brother, who were thrown into a canal after a failed poisoning attempt. The prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt through extensive witness testimony, forensic DNA evidence linking Man

P. MOHANRAJ & ORS.versusM/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 1331 March 2021Disposed off

The appellant company failed to honour multiple cheques, leading the respondent to issue statutory notices under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and file criminal complaints. While the corporate debtor was placed under a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR.versusMOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATION CONVENT

2021 INSC 1291 March 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether residential accommodations for nuns and hostel buildings for students qualify for exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The State argued that such buildings are merely residential and not used principally for religious or educational p

A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 1281 March 2021Dismissed

A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited, an operational creditor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by SREI Equipment Finance Limited before the NCLT, arguing that a winding‑up petition against the same debtor was already pending in the Bombay High Court and that the Companies Act provisions should

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