Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
Kamar Gani Usmani v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court held that an accused is not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if the investigation period is validly extended by the court even without the accused's presence or notice, provided the accused is informed and does not timely object.
Kamar Gani Usmani v. Gujarat State
The Supreme Court held that an accused is not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if the investigation period is validly extended by the court with the accused being informed and not objecting to such extension.
Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court held that an accused is not entitled to statutory bail if the investigation period is validly extended and the accused fails to timely challenge such extension despite being informed.
Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court reduced the appellant’s conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC due to lack of proof of intention and presence of mental illness.
Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, recognizing lack of intention to cause death and mental illness considerations.
Authorised Officer State Bank of India v. C. Natarajan
The Supreme Court upheld the lawful forfeiture of deposit by the Bank under SARFAESI Act auction rules, setting aside the High Court's refund order based on unjust enrichment.
Authorised Officer State Bank of India v. C. Natarajan
The Supreme Court upheld the Authorized Officer's statutory forfeiture of deposit in a SARFAESI Act auction sale, rejecting the High Court's order for refund and clarifying the limited scope of judicial interference in such forfeiture orders.
Saraf Exports v. Income Tax Commissioner, Jaipur-III
The Supreme Court held that benefits under DEPB and Duty Drawback schemes do not constitute business profits and are not eligible for deductions under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court held that profits from DEPB and Duty Drawback Schemes do not qualify as profits 'derived from' an industrial undertaking and thus are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Saraf Exports v. Income Tax Commissioner, Jaipur-III
The Supreme Court held that receipts under DEPB and Duty Drawback schemes do not qualify as profits derived from an industrial undertaking and are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court held that profits from DEPB and Duty Drawback schemes do not qualify as profits "derived from" an industrial undertaking under Section 80-IB and thus are not eligible for deduction, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
Cipla Ltd v. Commercial Tax Commissioner
The Supreme Court clarified the correct tax classification and applicable VAT rates for certain chemical products, holding that animal disinfectants fall under Entry 44(5) with 4% tax, and antiseptic drugs like Chedkatal under Entry 36(8)(h)(vi), also attracting 4% tax.
Messers Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Commercial Tax Commissioner & Ors.
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that mosquito repellents and cleaning products are correctly classified under specific VAT entries, while Dettol antiseptic liquid is rightly classified as a medicine attracting lower tax.
M/s Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes
The Supreme Court held that Dettol Antiseptic Liquid is classifiable as a medicament under the Kerala VAT Act attracting 4% VAT, while upholding higher tax classifications for mosquito repellants and cleaning products.
R. Hemalatha v. Kasthuri
The Supreme Court held that an unregistered Agreement to Sell compulsorily registrable under Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
R. Hemalatha v. Kasthuri
The Supreme Court held that an unregistered Agreement to Sell, though compulsorily registrable under the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that the statutory maximum limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot be extended by Section 4 of the Limitation Act or Section 10 of the General Clauses Act when it expires during court vacation, dismissing the appeal for condonation of delay beyond 120 days.
Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that the statutory maximum limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 4 of the Limitation Act or Section 10 of the General Clauses Act when the last day falls during court vacation.
NTPC LTD v. M/S SPML INFRA LTD
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(6) as the Settlement Agreement was valid and allegations of coercion were not prima facie credible, thus no subsisting arbitrable dispute existed.
International Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner
The Supreme Court held that penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act is not leviable for belated remittance of TDS after deduction, limiting penalty to failure to deduct tax at source.