Supreme Court of India
16,355 judgments
Land Acquisition Collector v. Ashok Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession could not be taken due to an operative court stay order continuing until the Act's commencement.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Ashok Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to an operative court stay continuing until the Act's commencement, overruling contrary precedents.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Kaur
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and clarified the correct interpretation of possession and compensation requirements to prevent lapse.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Kaur
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, and a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse, setting aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Dayanand
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Dayanand
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jai Pal
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation tendered before the Act's commencement, overruling the contrary High Court decision.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jai Pal
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to comply with its 2010 ruling limiting limited departmental competitive examination appointments to 10% from 2011 onwards and to adjust any excess appointments in future recruitments.
Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to comply with its 2010 ruling limiting judicial appointments via limited departmental competitive examination to 10%, adjusting any excess appointments in future recruitments.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Siddharth Kapoor
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Siddharth Kapoor
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's finding of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying that acquisition lapses only if both possession and compensation are not completed for five years prior to the Act's commencement.
Land Acquisition Collector v. B.S. Dhillon
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Land Acquisition Collector v. B.S. Dhillon
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedents.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser of land after the Section 4 notification has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing, setting aside the High Court's order declaring the acquisition deemed lapsed.
The State of Karnataka v. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that purchasing dealers must prove actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transactions beyond invoices and cheque payments to claim Input Tax Credit under Section 70 of the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003, and allowed the State's appeal denying ITC where such proof was absent.
The State of Karnataka v. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that purchasing dealers must prove actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transactions beyond invoices and cheque payments to claim Input Tax Credit under Section 70 of the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003, and allowed the State's appeals disallowing ITC where such proof was lacking.
K R Chitra v. Secretary General Supreme Court of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed the Supreme Court Bar Association to expeditiously consider and decide the petitioner's chamber allotment application within four months, emphasizing prompt administrative action especially for senior citizens.
Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's cognizance and summons against the Archbishop for alleged criminal conspiracy in alienation of church properties, dismissed appeals challenging these, and quashed the High Court's subsequent overreaching orders beyond its jurisdiction.
Premchand v. The State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to section 300 IPC, emphasizing the importance of considering the accused's written statement under section 313 CrPC and the surrounding circumstances.