Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
Bhoomi aur Nirmaan Vibhag v. Atro Devi and Others
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, either possession or payment of compensation suffices to prevent lapse of acquisition, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the appeal.
MOHD. SHARIQ v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
The Supreme Court held that forfeiture of earnest money without informing the highest bidder of pending litigation is unjustified and directed refund with interest, exercising writ jurisdiction to prevent injustice.
Panchram v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
The Supreme Court reduced the appellant's conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC due to lack of intent to cause death, modifying the sentence accordingly.
Panchram v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, substituting it with conviction under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a sharp weapon, and reduced the sentence to the period already served.
Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly, holding that all members are liable for offences committed in prosecution of the common object.
Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, holding that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offences committed in prosecution of their common object, even if some abscond or are tried separately.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Surinder Singh
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation deposited with the Collector, allowing DDA's appeals and setting aside High Court orders to the contrary.
Delhi Development Authority v. Surinder Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is deemed complete only if possession is taken or compensation paid within five years, overruling earlier inconsistent decisions and allowing the appeals of the Delhi Development Authority.
KPTCL v. C. P. Mundinamani & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that employees who complete one full year of service before retirement are entitled to increments earned during that period even if payable after retirement, dismissing the employer's appeal.
KPTCL v. C. P. Mundinamani & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that employees who complete one year of service with good conduct are entitled to annual increments earned before retirement, even if credited the day after retirement.
KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani
The Supreme Court held that employees who earn an annual increment one day prior to retirement are entitled to receive it despite the increment accruing on the day following retirement.
K. PHANINDRA REDDY v. G. SUBRAMANIAN
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court Division Bench's order restoring permission for RSS processions under reasonable conditions, holding that a Single Judge cannot modify writ petition orders via contempt proceedings.
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Honeywell International (India) Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act is deemed complete under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, barring further challenges, but remanded cases challenging acquisition merits for fresh adjudication.
Surendra Singh v. Rajasthan State and Others
The Supreme Court held that an accused who is a member of an unlawful assembly can be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the fatal act was committed by another member, restoring the trial court conviction and setting aside the High Court acquittal.
Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation paid, setting aside High Court orders declaring lapse and remanding matters for merits consideration.
National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Subhash Chander Khatri
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse and awarding compensation.
Pramod Singla v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that under COFEPOSA, the detaining authority must consider representations promptly while the Central Government must await the Advisory Board's report, and quashed the detention order due to illegible grounds of detention supplied to the appellant.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing criminal proceedings at the discharge stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the accused to face trial and emphasizing that proof of charges and malicious prosecution are to be decided only at trial conclusion.
Kadri J. v. Aryan Singh
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing criminal proceedings prematurely under Section 482 CrPC and restored the trial against the accused.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by conducting a mini trial and set aside the quashing order, directing the accused to face trial.