Supreme Court of India
18,256 judgments
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Gupta
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.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Gupta
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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – 1 v. M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd.
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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – 1 v. M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd.
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.
Union of India v. M/s. Bharat Enterprise
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.
Union of India v. M/S. Bharat Enterprise
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.
Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited
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.
Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited
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.
The Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla
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.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development
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.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development
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.
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab
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.
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab
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.
Munshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
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.
Munshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
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.
M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR.
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.
M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR.
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.
Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Joshi & Ors.
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.
M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS
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.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur v. M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
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.