Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd v. Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association

· Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2024 INSC 1027
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of toll collection by NTBCL on the DND Flyway, ruling that the power to levy tolls cannot be delegated to a private entity and emphasizing judicial scrutiny of public contracts to protect public interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Concession Agreement toll collection delegation of taxing power Article 14 of Constitution

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif

· Bela M. Trivedi; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2024 INSC 1045
Cites 4 · Cited by 17

The Supreme Court held that delayed compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a procedural irregularity that does not vitiate trial or entitle bail, and remanded the bail application for fresh consideration under mandatory Section 37 conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 52A Section 37 bail

Kamla Devi v. State of Haryana

· Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2024 INSC 1028

The Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's compensation award for land acquired by the State of Haryana, setting aside the High Court's reduction and directing payment with statutory benefits.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation assessment Land Acquisition Act 1894 valuation of land

Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement

· Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2024 INSC 975

The Supreme Court granted bail to a former State Minister accused in a large-scale recruitment and money laundering scam, emphasizing the right to liberty against prolonged pre-trial detention while imposing strict conditions to safeguard the investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Prevention of Money Laundering Act Article 21 prolonged incarceration

M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank

· J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 177
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court allowed the auction purchaser's appeal, holding that procedural irregularities in auction notice periods under the SARFAESI Act do not warrant setting aside the sale when the purchaser has paid consideration and developed the property, emphasizing the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and equity.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act auction notice period Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction guarantor challenge

Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand; State of Uttarakhand v. Ashok Kumar

· Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2025 INSC 118

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Ajay Malik for wrongful confinement and trafficking due to lack of prima facie evidence, upheld discharge of Ashok Kumar, and directed the government to consider a legal framework for protecting domestic workers.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant wrongful confinement human trafficking Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra

· B. R. Gavai; Prashant Kumar Mishra; K. V. Viswanathan · 2025 INSC 116

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence due to inadmissibility of crucial CCTV evidence for non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant circumstantial evidence Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act CCTV footage admissibility death sentence

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra

· J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 139

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind before ordering police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., quashed the mechanical order directing investigation against a police officer for offences not prima facie made out, and emphasized procedural safeguards codified in the BNSS.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police investigation Cognizable offence Section 294 IPC

Balbir Singh & Anr v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors

· J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 81
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order permitting deposit of balance sale consideration beyond 20 days under a merged decree for specific performance and rejected rescission under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance Section 28 Specific Relief Act 1963 doctrine of merger rescission of contract

Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State

· J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 90

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder but reduced the sentence to the period already served, clarifying the strict conditions for applying Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC on grave and sudden provocation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant culpable homicide not amounting to murder Exception 1 Section 300 IPC grave and sudden provocation reasonable man test

BHUDEV MALLICK ALIAS BHUDEB MALLICK & ANR v. RANAJIT GHOSHAL & ORS

· J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 175

The Supreme Court held that execution of a permanent injunction decree can be sought at any time upon breach, but arrest and detention orders require mandatory procedural compliance and recorded findings of wilful disobedience, failing which such orders are jurisdictionally invalid.

civil appeal_allowed Significant permanent injunction execution of decree Order XXI Rule 32 CPC Order XXI Rule 11-A CPC

Nirmiti Developers v. State of Maharashtra

· J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 265

The Supreme Court held that prolonged failure by authorities to acquire land under the MRTP Act causes reservation to lapse, but benefits of original owners' purchase notices under Section 49 do not automatically extend to subsequent purchasers who must initiate their own acquisition proceedings.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Section 49 purchase notice Section 127 lapsing of reservation land acquisition

State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore

· Sanjay Karol · 2025 INSC 248

The Supreme Court held that a second FIR is maintainable if it discloses new facts or a larger conspiracy distinct from the first FIR and set aside the High Court's order quashing the second FIR in a corruption case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant second FIR quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Prevention of Corruption Act

Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited

· Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2025 INSC 207

The Supreme Court held that HUDCO breached its contractual obligations and must refund the forfeited amount to the appellant, but denied interest due to the appellant's unclean hands and forum shopping.

civil appeal_allowed Significant contractual breach forfeiture refund specific relief

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik

· Dipankar Datta; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 218
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that suppression of material evidence by the employer justified review and set aside of dismissal, awarding partial back wages to the wrongfully terminated employee.

labor appeal_allowed Significant suggestio falsi suppressio veri fraud on court back wages

Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa v. Satish Chandra

· Dipankar Datta; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 183
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that an application for substitution by heirs is valid regardless of who files it, set aside abatement orders, and directed the High Court to decide long-pending second appeals on merits, emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delay and procedural compliance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant substitution of parties abatement condonation of delay Order XXII CPC

Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa

· Dipankar Datta; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 217

The Supreme Court upheld the State of Goa's recovery of electricity tariff rebates granted under rescinded notifications, dismissing industrial consumers' claims based on entitlement after rescission and applying res judicata and public interest principles.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant electricity tariff rebate government notification rescission of notification Goa Electricity Act

SHAHJAHAN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

· Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah · 2025 INSC 528

The Supreme Court allowed the wife's appeal for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, holding that she was entitled to maintenance from the date of application and clarifying that religious fatwas have no legal enforceability in India.

family appeal_allowed Significant Section 125 CrPC maintenance wife's right to maintenance living separately without sufficient cause

Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

· J.B. Pardiwala; Sanjay Karol · 2025 INSC 155

The Supreme Court held that an offence under Section 276CC is committed immediately after the due date for filing returns, and subsequent offences after issuance of a show cause notice are not compoundable as first offences under the 2014 guidelines.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 276CC Income Tax Act, 1961 compounding of offences first offence

Atul Kumar Aggarwal v. Mahendra Pratap Kakan

· K. V. Viswanathan; M. M. Sundresh · 2025 INSC 564
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the bona fide need of the landlord and allowed eviction of long-term tenants, permitting legal heirs to continue proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972.

property appeal_allowed Significant bona fide need eviction Section 21(1)(a) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972