Supreme Court of India

13,887 judgments

Year:
Showing 2020 — 1117 judgments found

The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

27 Aug 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee; Vineet Saran; M.R. Shah; Aniru... · 2020 INSC 512
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld that subclassification within Scheduled Castes for reservation is unconstitutional, affirming the exclusivity of Parliament's power under Article 341 and dismissing the Punjab Act's provision granting preferential reservation to subgroups.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Scheduled Castes Reservation Subclassification Article 16(4)

The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

27 Aug 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee; Vineet Saran; M.R. Shah; Aniru...
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that subclassification within Scheduled Castes for reservation is unconstitutional, reaffirming the exclusivity of Parliament's power under Article 341 and referring the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration of E.V. Chinnaiah.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Scheduled Castes Reservation Sub-classification Article 16(4)

Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala

27 Aug 2020 · Navin Sinha; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in allowing recovery of possession in a Second Appeal without a substantial question of law, restoring the First Appellate Court's decree declaring title but denying possession due to limitation and continuous possession by the appellant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Second Appeal Section 100 CPC Substantial Question of Law Declaration of Title

Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala

27 Aug 2020 · Navin Sinha; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law and restored the First Appellate Court's decree declaring title but denying possession due to limitation and continuous possession by the appellant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Section 100 CPC Limitation Act

Karthick v. The State

26 Aug 2020 · R. Subhash Reddy; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 507

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction for offences under Sections 147, 323, 325 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already served and enhanced victim compensation.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 147 IPC Section 323 IPC Section 325 IPC Section 149 IPC

Karthick v. The State

26 Aug 2020 · R. Subhash Reddy; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for rioting and grievous injuries but reduced the sentence to the period already served and enhanced victim compensation.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 147 IPC Section 323 IPC Section 325 IPC Section 149 IPC

State of M.P. v. Rakesh Sethi

26 Aug 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the State's power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prescribe fees and procedures for reservation and assignment of specific vehicle registration numbers, validating Rule 55A framed by Madhya Pradesh.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 registration mark State Government rule-making power Section 41(6)

V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.

26 Aug 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court held that prior casual labour service must be counted as qualifying service for pension on parity with regularised workers, allowing the appellant's pension claim despite his subsequent recruitment through KPSC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pension entitlement casual labour service regularisation Government Orders

V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.

26 Aug 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court held that prior casual labour service must be counted as qualifying service for pension on parity with regularised workers, allowing pension benefits to an employee appointed through direct recruitment and transferred inter-departmentally.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pension entitlement casual labour service regularisation Government Orders

Narasamma & Ors. v. A. Krishnappa

26 Aug 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that adverse possession cannot be claimed simultaneously with title from the same date and that the defendant failed to prove valid title or adverse possession over the disputed property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant adverse possession title dispute joint family property agreement of sale

Narasamma & Ors. v. A. Krishnappa

26 Aug 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that adverse possession cannot be claimed simultaneously with title and that the defendant failed to prove ownership or adverse possession over the disputed property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant adverse possession title dispute joint family property agreement of sale

Union of India v. Agricas LLP

26 Aug 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Central Government notifications restricting import of certain pulses under the FTDR Act, affirming the authority of the government and DGFT and rejecting challenges based on procedural and constitutional grounds.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 EXIM Policy Directorate General of Foreign Trade Import restrictions

Raj Pal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

25 Aug 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

Capital gains arising from compulsory land acquisition accrue on the date of award of compensation, not on the date of notification or possession.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital gains date of accrual land acquisition Land Acquisition Act 1894

Raj Pal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

25 Aug 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that capital gains on compulsory land acquisition accrue on the date of award fixing compensation, not on the date of notification, and upheld taxability accordingly.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital gains date of transfer land acquisition Land Acquisition Act 1894

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; K M Joseph · 2020 INSC 503
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that flat buyers are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for gross delay in possession beyond the inadequate contractual rate, and execution of conveyance deeds does not bar such claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant Apartment Buyers Agreement delay in possession deficiency of service consumer protection

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; K M Joseph
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that flat buyers are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for gross delay in possession beyond the limited contractual rate, and execution of conveyance deeds does not bar such claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant delayed possession consumer protection deficiency of service Apartment Buyers Agreement

Vikrant Singh Malik v. Supertech Limited

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court held that a representative consumer complaint under Section 12(1)(c) requires a common grievance and relief on behalf of all consumers interested, and restored the complaint for reconsideration in light of this principle.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12(1)(c) representative complaint same interest

Vikrant Singh Malik v. Supertech Limited

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court held that representative consumer complaints under Section 12(1)(c) require commonality of interest and restored the dismissed complaint for reconsideration by the NCDRC in light of this principle.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 12(1)(c) representative complaint common interest

SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS.

21 Aug 2020 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; KRISHNA MURARI; S. RAVINDRA BHAT

The Supreme Court held that appellants not party to the suit and whose rights are unaffected by the decree cannot maintain an appeal without leave as 'persons aggrieved'.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi person aggrieved appeal leave to appeal

Sardar Bahginder Singh v. Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh

20 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court held that the exclusive power to nominate four members to the Nanded Gurudwara Board under Section 6(1)(viii) of the 1956 Act lies with the collective body of the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, not the State Government, and directed the nomination process to be conducted accordingly.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956 Section 6(1)(viii) Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950