Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P.

· K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment under Rule 5 must be to a post corresponding to the deceased employee's cadre and directed appointment of the appellant to the Sweeper post, rejecting his claim to a higher Class-III post.

administrative appeal_partly_allowed Significant compassionate appointment Rule 5 Uttar Pradesh Recruitment Rules 1974 suitable employment

Nazeer @ Nazeer Mohammed v. State Rep by Inspector of Police

· Dinesh Maheshwari; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the murder, dismissing the appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC identification of dead body last seen evidence

Nazeer @ Nazeer Mohammed v. State Rep by Inspector of Police

· Dinesh Maheshwari; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the reliability of last seen evidence and identification of the deceased.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen evidence identification of dead body Section 302 IPC

Aju alias Ajendra Prasad v. Rajasthan State; Suman Devi v. Rajasthan State

· M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari · (2022) INSC 983

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants in a murder case due to insufficient circumstantial evidence failing to exclude all reasonable hypotheses except their guilt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC

Raju alias Rajendra Prasad v. Rajasthan State; Suman Devi v. Rajasthan State

· M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants in a murder case due to failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence excluding all reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC murder

Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K

· Surya Kant; J. B. Pardiwala · 2022 INSC 1133

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail in a serious POCSO sexual assault case, emphasizing the primacy of prima facie evidence, statutory presumption under Section 29, and victim's trauma in bail considerations.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail POCSO Act Section 29 POCSO sexual assault minor

Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd.

· Bela M. Trivedi; Uday Umesh Lalit
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the MSMED Act, 2006 provisions override the Arbitration Act, 1996, allowing parties to approach the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution despite existing arbitration agreements.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act 2006 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Section 18 MSMED Act

Manusha Sreekumar & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

· Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for loss of dependency by fixing the deceased’s income based on statutory minimum wages and upheld the award of non-conventional heads not challenged on appeal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loss of dependency motor vehicles accident compensation notional income

Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. v. State of Assam

· B. V. Nagarathna; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court set aside convictions for murder due to material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies and lack of independent evidence, emphasizing careful scrutiny of related witnesses and the necessity to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly material contradictions related witnesses reasonable doubt

Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. v. State of Assam

· Ajay Rastogi; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside convictions for murder and related offences due to material contradictions in prosecution evidence and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly Section 302 IPC Section 149 IPC material contradictions

Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Limited v. Baker Hughes Singapore Pte

· Bela M. Trivedi; Uday Umesh Lalit · 2022 INSC 1123

The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements remain enforceable despite non-payment of stamp duty on underlying contracts and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate consolidated disputes, pending a Constitution Bench decision on the issue.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Stamp duty Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958

Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Limited v. Baker Hughes Singapore Pte

· Uday Umesh Lalit; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are enforceable despite pending stamp duty disputes on underlying contracts and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate consolidated disputes, referring the stamp duty-arbitration interplay to a Constitution Bench.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement separability doctrine kompetenz-kompetenz stamp duty

Nandini Sharma v. Registrar Supreme Court of India

· K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rules conferring exclusive rights on Advocates on Record to practice before it, dismissing the challenge that such Rules violate fundamental rights or the Advocates Act.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Advocate on Record Supreme Court Rules 2013 Article 145 Constitution of India Section 52 Advocates Act 1961

Nandini Sharma v. Registrar Supreme Court of India

· K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Advocates on Record system and Rules conferring exclusive rights to them to practice before the Supreme Court, dismissing the challenge on grounds of unreasonableness and discrimination.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Advocates on Record Supreme Court Rules 2013 Article 145 Constitution Advocates Act 1961

Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul

· A. S. Bopanna; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2022 INSC 1216
Cites 2 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that demurrages cannot be recovered as "charges" under the Food Corporation of India's road transport contracts where contractors are not responsible for loading/unloading, dismissing the Corporation's appeals and upholding the High Court's decisions.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant demurrages contract interpretation Food Corporation of India charges

Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul

· A. S. Bopanna; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that demurrages imposed by Railways cannot be recovered by the Food Corporation of India from contractors under the contract clause for "charges," as the contractors had no obligation for loading/unloading causing such demurrages.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant demurrages contract interpretation Food Corporation of India contractual liability

T. J. Parameshwarappa v. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

· Nagarathna J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Supreme Court clarified that compensation for permanent disability in motor accident claims must be based on the actual loss of earning capacity, not merely the percentage of disability, and enhanced the claimant's compensation accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation permanent disability loss of earning capacity assessment of damages

M/s Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. v. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

· B.V. Nagarathna; B.R. Gavai

The Supreme Court restored the State Commission's award of compensation for deficiency in forwarding services causing dishonor of Letter of Credit, holding respondents jointly liable.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in service Letter of Credit Forwarder Cargo Receipt

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS

· Dinesh Maheshwari; J. B. Pardiwala · 2022 INSC 1293

The Supreme Court upheld that excess electricity consumption beyond connected load is unauthorised use attracting penalty at twice the tariff, but limited penalty applies where excess use is in the same premises and purpose without tariff change, validating Kerala's regulatory exception.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorised use of electricity Section 126 Electricity Act 2003 connected load tariff assessment

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS

· Dinesh Maheshwari; J. B. Pardiwala · 2022 INSC 1293

The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's ruling that penalty for unauthorised excess electricity use is generally twice the tariff for the higher category, but limited to twice fixed charges when overdrawal occurs in the same premises and tariff without tariff change, validating Regulation 153(15) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorised use of electricity Section 126 Electricity Act 2003 penalty assessment connected load