Supreme Court of India

8,449 judgments

Year:

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited v. M/s Atkins Special Risks Ltd. and Others

24 Mar 2023 · Aniruddha Bose; Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court upheld IRDA's dismissal of bribery allegations against an insurance broker, setting aside the appellate tribunal's remand for fresh inquiry due to lack of concrete evidence.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority IRDA Insurance Act 1938 Bribery allegations

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S ATKINS SPECIAL RISKS LTD.

24 Mar 2023 · Aniruddha Bose; Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court upheld IRDA's dismissal of bribery allegations against an insurance broker, setting aside the appellate tribunal's order for fresh inquiry due to lack of cogent evidence.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority bribery allegations insurance brokerage Securities Appellate Tribunal

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; Sanjay Karol · 2023 INSC 292
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court holds that mere membership of a banned organization declared unlawful under UAPA is punishable without requiring proof of active participation or incitement, overruling earlier decisions that imposed such a requirement.

criminal other Significant Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 10(a)(i) mere membership banned organization

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; Sanjay Karol

The Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organization declared unlawful under UAPA is punishable without requiring proof of active participation or intent, rejecting earlier decisions that read down the provision based on American constitutional doctrines.

constitutional other Significant Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 10(a)(i) mere membership banned organization

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babulal Lade

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court directed the transfer and disbursement of employees’ wages deposited by the bank in liquidation proceedings to the Collector for verified payment to employees/legal heirs, limiting the bank’s liability to wages and salaries only.

civil appeal_allowed Significant employees’ dues liquidation wages and salaries statutory dues

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babulal Lade

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court directed transfer and disbursement of employees' wages from amounts deposited by the bank, limiting the bank's liability to wages and excluding statutory dues, with proper verification and return of any balance to the bank.

civil appeal_allowed Significant wages and salaries liquidation employee dues statutory dues

Edappadi Palaniswami v. R.S. Bharathi

24 Mar 2023 · Krishna Murari; Sanjay Karol

The Supreme Court dismissed an application seeking clarification of its earlier order, holding that the applicant lacked locus to seek modification in an unrelated matter involving different parties and facts.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 482 CrPC CBI investigation locus standi force majeure

Director General (Prisons) v. In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; C. T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court directed prisoners released on Emergency Parole or interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic to surrender within 15 days as the situation has normalized, allowing them to seek bail or suspension of sentence thereafter.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Emergency Parole Interim Bail COVID-19 pandemic High-Powered Committee

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Gupta

24 Mar 2023 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge land acquisition lapsing under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and set aside the High Court's order declaring acquisition lapsed.

property appeal_allowed Significant locus standi subsequent purchaser land acquisition Section 24(2)

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Gupta

24 Mar 2023 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers have no locus standi to challenge land acquisition or its lapsing under the 2013 Act and set aside the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse.

property appeal_allowed Significant locus standi subsequent purchaser land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – 1 v. M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd.

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty under Section 35E does not require a separate notice under Section 11A if the refund order is set aside within the prescribed time, overruling contrary High Court rulings.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 11A Section 35E erroneous refund

केंद्रीय उत्पादन शुल्क आयुक्त v. मेसर्स मोरारजी गोकुळदास एसपीजी आणि डब्ल्यूव्हीजी कं. लि.

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; कृष्णा मुरारी

The Supreme Court held that no separate Section 11A notice is required for recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty once the refund order is set aside under Section 35E, affirming the binding precedent in Asian Paints (India) Ltd.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act 1944 Section 11A Section 35E refund recovery

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – 1 v. M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd.

24 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty under Section 35E does not require a separate notice under Section 11A if proceedings under Section 35E are initiated within time, overruling contrary High Court and Tribunal decisions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 11A Section 35E erroneous refund

Union of India v. M/s. Bharat Enterprise

23 Mar 2023 · K. M. Joseph; Krishna Murari; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that contractual clauses barring claims beyond the final bill are binding unless vitiated by duress, set aside the High Court order allowing additional claims, and directed a lump sum payment to settle the dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration final bill no claims certificate clauses 65 and 65A

Union of India v. M/S. Bharat Enterprise

23 Mar 2023 · K. M. Joseph; Krishna Murari; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that claims beyond the final bill barred by contract clauses cannot be allowed by an arbitrator unless the final bill was vitiated, setting aside the High Court's order and directing a global settlement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration final bill no claims certificate clauses 65 and 65A

Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited

23 Mar 2023 · Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud; M.R. Shah

The Supreme Court applied the principle of restitution to direct return of amounts paid without adjudication of rights, correcting its earlier erroneous orders in a land sale dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant principle of restitution actus curiae neminem gravabit unjust enrichment interim orders

Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited

23 Mar 2023 · Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud; M.R. Shah

The Supreme Court applied the principle of restitution to order the return of amounts paid without adjudication from disputed land sale proceeds, emphasizing that court orders must not confer unjust enrichment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant principle of restitution actus curiae neminem gravabit unjust enrichment interim orders

Delhi Government v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatra

23 Mar 2023 · Aniruddha Bose; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s right to withdraw her resignation and be reinstated with pension benefits under Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, emphasizing procedural fairness and absence of disciplinary bars.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant withdrawal of resignation CCS Pension Rules 1972 Rule 26(4) reinstatement

The Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla

23 Mar 2023 · Aniruddha Bose; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court upheld the respondent's right to withdraw her resignation after acceptance under Rule 26(4) CCS Pension Rules, rejecting the employer's reliance on a prior chargesheet to deny reinstatement.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant withdrawal of resignation Rule 26(4) CCS Pension Rules chargesheet vigilance clearance

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development

23 Mar 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Pamidighantam... · 2023 INSC 278
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that allocation and use of land allotted to it, including conversion for lawyers’ chambers, is an administrative matter not amenable to judicial direction under Article 32, and dismissed the writ petitions accordingly.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 32 Constitution of India writ of mandamus land use change Supreme Court Archives