Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

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

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

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

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

Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale & Ors v. Janardan Subajirao Wide

21 Mar 2023 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; Sanjay Kumar

The Supreme Court held that a tenant's execution of an assignment agreement transferring leasehold business interest in breach of lease conditions and statutory provisions amounts to unlawful assignment warranting eviction.

property appeal_allowed Significant leasehold interest assignment subletting Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947

Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide

21 Mar 2023 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; Sanjay Kumar

The Supreme Court held that a tenant's execution of an assignment agreement transferring his leasehold business interest without landlord consent or statutory permission constitutes unlawful assignment warranting eviction under the Bombay Rents Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leasehold assignment sub-letting Bombay Rents Act 1947 Section 13(1)(e)

K.H. Balakrishna v. The State of Karnataka

21 Mar 2023 · V. Ramasubramanian; Pankaj Mithal

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation charges due to insufficient evidence and indications of consensual relationship and elopement.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant kidnapping wrongful confinement criminal intimidation Section 366 IPC

Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS & Ors.

21 Mar 2023 · Krishna Murari; Ahsanuddin Amanullah · 2023 INSC 272

The Supreme Court quashed adverse remarks and directions issued by the Karnataka High Court against non-parties during bail proceedings, emphasizing judicial restraint and fair hearing.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant adverse remarks bail proceedings judicial restraint presumption of innocence

Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS

21 Mar 2023 · Krishna Murari; Ahsanuddin Amanullah

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court against appellants unconnected to bail proceedings and quashed directions issued beyond the scope of bail jurisdiction, emphasizing judicial restraint and fairness.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant adverse remarks bail proceedings judicial restraint Section 439 CrPC

Union of India v. Parashotam Dass

21 Mar 2023 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Abhay S. Oka; B.V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts retain writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to judicially review Armed Forces Tribunal orders, overruling prior conflicting precedent and ensuring access to justice for service personnel.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Article 226 Constitution Judicial review High Court jurisdiction

Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India

21 Mar 2023 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; Hima Kohli
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the Union Government validly abolished the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by rescinding its establishing notification under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, as Article 323-A is enabling and does not mandate continuation of tribunals.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Administrative Tribunals Act Article 323-A Section 21 General Clauses Act abolition of administrative tribunal

Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police

21 Mar 2023 · Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli; Pamidighantam Sri N... · 2023 INSC 264

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder, holding that review petitions in death penalty cases require oral hearings and that electronic evidence without Section 65B certification admitted under prior law does not vitiate the conviction where other evidence is cogent.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant death penalty review petition Section 65B Indian Evidence Act electronic evidence

Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police

21 Mar 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli; Pamidighantam Sri Nara...

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition against the death sentence for kidnapping and murder, holding that despite inadmissibility of electronic evidence lacking Section 65B certification, the remaining evidence sufficed to uphold conviction, and reaffirmed the requirement of open court hearing for death penalty review petitions.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant death penalty review petition Section 65B electronic evidence

Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation

20 Mar 2023 · V. Ramasubramanian; Pankaj Mithal

The Supreme Court allowed anticipatory bail to accused in a bank fraud case where investigation was complete and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, emphasizing that presence for trial does not mandate custody.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail custodial interrogation CBI investigation bank fraud

GPSK Capital Private Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India

20 Mar 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court held that a corporate stock broker is not entitled to fee exemption under SEBI regulations unless the individual membership is converted with the individual as whole-time director holding requisite shares, and multiple registrations are required for multiple stock exchanges.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Stock Broker Registration Fee Exemption Schedule III

GPSK Capital Private Limited v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India

20 Mar 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court held that fee exemption under clause (4) of Schedule III of SEBI Regulations applies only when individual membership is converted into a corporate entity with the individual as whole-time director holding requisite shares, and rejected exemption claims based on mere transfer of membership to an existing company.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers Regulations, 1992 Schedule III clause (4) fee continuity benefits

JOLLY GEORGE & ANR. v. GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES

18 Mar 2023 · V. Ramasubramanian · 2023 INSC 365

The Supreme Court held that an Acknowledgement Certificate under the Kerala MSME Act overrides the requirement of Panchayat license for establishing a Hot Mix Plant, provided Pollution Control Board consent is obtained.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Kerala MSME Act Acknowledgement Certificate Overriding effect Panchayat license

Indian Railway Construction Company Limited v. M/s National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited

17 Mar 2023 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh · 2023 INSC 248
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld contract termination and forfeiture of security deposits under Clause 17.4 despite invalidity of termination under Clause 60.1 and restored the arbitral award granting reasonable interest on advances against hypothecation of equipment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant contract termination forfeiture of security deposit arbitral award interest pendente lite