Supreme Court of India

8,449 judgments

Year:

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development

23 Mar 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Pamidighantam...

The Supreme Court held that allocation and use of land allotted to it for lawyers’ chambers is an administrative matter not amenable to judicial intervention 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 chambers

Avtar Singh v. Punjab State

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bimbadal · 2023 INSC 280

The Supreme Court quashed convictions under the Essential Commodities Act for illegal LPG possession due to unauthorized seizure by a police Sub-Inspector lacking statutory authority under the Petroleum Gas Order, 1988.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Petroleum Gas Order, 1988 search and seizure authorization of officers

Avtar Singh v. Punjab State

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal · 2023 INSC 280

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction under the Essential Commodities Act as the police Sub-Inspector lacked statutory authority to conduct search and seizure under the relevant provisions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 7 Petroleum (Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 statutory authority

Jagtar Singh v. Punjab State

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajeev Bindal · 2023 INSC 279

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a corruption case, holding that both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 illegal gratification demand and acceptance marked currency notes

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal · 2023 INSC 279

Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained without proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and mere recovery of marked currency notes is insufficient.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 demand and acceptance illegal gratification marked currency notes

Jagtar Singh v. Punjab State

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Raje Bindal

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a corruption case, holding that both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 illegal gratification demand and acceptance proof of bribery

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant for lack of proof of demand of illegal gratification, holding that recovery alone is insufficient to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 illegal gratification demand and acceptance proof of demand

Munshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal · 2023 INSC 281

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of appellant Munshi Singh in a dowry death case due to lack of specific evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before the death, holding that general allegations are insufficient to invoke statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 113B Evidence Act presumption of dowry death

Munshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

23 Mar 2023 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of appellant Munshi Singh in a dowry death case due to lack of specific evidence of cruelty or harassment required to invoke presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 113B Evidence Act presumption of cruelty

Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman

22 Mar 2023 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepankar Dutta · 2023 INSC 274

The Supreme Court held that sales between companies without mutual control or influence do not qualify as transactions between 'related persons' under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, thereby disallowing additional duty demands based on such classification.

tax appeal_allowed Significant related person Section 4(4)(c) Central Excise Valuation Rules mutual control

M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR.

22 Mar 2023 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DIPANKAR DATTA

The Supreme Court held that mutual interest in each other's business is essential to classify parties as related persons under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, and set aside the differential duty demand on BIL for sales to its subsidiary Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd.

tax appeal_allowed Significant related person Section 4(4)(c) Central Excise Act, 1944 mutual interest test

Messrs Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman

22 Mar 2023 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepankar Dutta

The Supreme Court held that sales between Bilag Industries Limited and Aventis Cropsciences (India) Ltd. were not between 'related persons' under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as there was no mutual interest in each other's business, and set aside the excise duty valuation order.

tax appeal_allowed Significant related persons Section 4(4)(c) Central Excise Act, 1944 excise duty valuation

M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR.

22 Mar 2023 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DIPANKAR DATTA
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that mutual interest in each other's business is essential to treat parties as 'related persons' under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, and set aside the revenue's valuation based on related party transaction in favor of BIL.

tax appeal_allowed Significant related person Section 4(4)(c) Central Excise Act, 1944 transaction value

S. Ravindar Bhatt v. Dashpaskar Datay

22 Mar 2023 · S. Ravindar Bhatt; Dashpaskar Datay
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The court upheld the National Green Tribunal's directions mandating strict compliance by local authorities in maintaining prescribed maximum water levels and preventing unauthorized encroachments in the Tibhalbhav water reservoir, emphasizing judicial oversight in environmental governance.

administrative petition_allowed Significant National Green Tribunal maximum water level water reservoir regulation environmental law compliance

Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Joshi & Ors.

22 Mar 2023 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Dipankar Datta

The Supreme Court held that the NGT erred in prohibiting construction based on draft maps ignoring prior final decrees and sanctioned development plans, directing fresh demarcation and adherence to natural justice.

environmental appeal_allowed Significant National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 principles of natural justice doctrine of finality res judicata

M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS

22 Mar 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act, 1976, holding that failure to prove legitimate source of acquisition justifies forfeiture without option to pay fine.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant forfeiture Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act, 1976 Section 7 forfeiture Section 8 burden of proof

Central Goods and Services Tax Commissioner, Kanpur v. A. R. Polilams Private Limited

21 Mar 2023 · Krishna Murari; Suanshu Liliya · 2023 INSC 268

The Supreme Court held that exemption under Rule 4(A) of the Central Excise Rules is available only for goods sold to ultimate consumers with legally mandated MRP stickers, excluding sales to intermediaries like defense institutions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Rules 1944 Rule 4(A) Notification 12/2012-CE Legal Metrology Rules 2011

Central Goods and Services Tax Commissioner, Kanpur v. A. R. Polymers Private Limited

21 Mar 2023 · Krishna Murari; Suanshu Liliya

The court held that goods sold to defense and paramilitary institutions are not eligible for excise duty exemption under Rule 4(A) without valid MRP labeling mandated by legal metrology rules, allowing the appeal and restoring the duty demand.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Rules 1944 Rule 4(A) Notification 12/2012-CE exemption

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur v. M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

21 Mar 2023 · Krishna Murari; Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court held that bulk sales of footwear to defense and paramilitary forces do not qualify for MRP-based excise duty benefits under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act as such sales are not retail sales to final consumers.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 4(A) Central Excise Act MRP valuation retail sale institutional consumers

Nagaraj Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu

21 Mar 2023 · B. R. Gavai; Vikram Nath

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges, holding that conviction cannot rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant interested witness corroboration previous enmity Sections 302 and 341 IPC