Supreme Court of India
16,355 judgments
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking restoration of original names of historical places renamed by foreign invaders, holding that such relief conflicts with the constitutional principles of secularism, rule of law, and national integration.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking restoration of original names of places renamed by foreign invaders, holding that such relief conflicts with constitutional secularism, equality, and fraternity principles.
AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD. v. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
The Supreme Court upheld the resumption of an industrial plot due to the allottee's failure to commence construction within the stipulated period, affirming the validity of contractual conditions and the allotting authority's right to resume the plot after due opportunity.
National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Subhash Chander Khatri
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur
The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated or belatedly communicated adverse ACRs cannot be considered for promotion and directed fresh consideration of the petitioner’s promotion ignoring such ACRs under the rules prevailing at the time of the DPC meeting.
Delhi Development Authority v. Amit Jain
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation is not deposited in court, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Delhi Development Authority v. Amit Jain
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken, even if compensation is unpaid, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
The Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that the stringent bail provisions under Section 45 of the PMLA apply to anticipatory bail applications, setting aside the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail in a money laundering case.
Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy
The Supreme Court held that the stringent bail provisions under Section 45 of the PMLA apply to anticipatory bail applications, quashing the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail in a money laundering case involving serious economic offences.
Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court allowed further investigation by the State police despite chargesheet filing and framing of charges but refused transfer of investigation to CBI, emphasizing the constitutional courts' power to ensure fair investigation and trial.
P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan
The Supreme Court held that an unexplained delay of 853 days in depositing the balance sale consideration disentitles the decree-holder from extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and allowed rescission of the agreement to sell.
P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan
The Supreme Court held that an unexplained delay of 853 days in depositing the balance sale consideration disentitles the plaintiff from extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and allowed rescission of the agreement to sell.
S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising appellate powers under the guise of review jurisdiction, and restored the original writ petition judgment while remanding related matters for fresh consideration.
Roopwanti v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of accused persons, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable.
State of Haryana v. Niranjan Singh
The Supreme Court upheld the release of certain acquired lands on parity grounds while reversing release orders for lands already utilized or required for public infrastructure, emphasizing non-arbitrariness and public interest in land acquisition.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Jai Prakash Tyagi
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's declaration of lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying that lapse occurs only if possession and compensation both are absent for five years prior to the Act's commencement.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Jai Prakash Tyagi
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, overruling earlier contrary precedent and allowing the appeal of the Land Acquisition Collector.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv
The Supreme Court held that landowners are entitled to compensation for land used by the State without formal acquisition, treating a lapsed Section 4 notification as deemed acquisition date, while excluding interest for delay but granting other statutory benefits.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajiv and Anr.
The Supreme Court held that landowners are entitled to compensation based on a deemed acquisition date despite delay, directing the State to pay compensation without interest for the delayed period under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Delhi Development Authority v. Rajender Singh
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, even if disputed or deposited in court.