Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
MURULY M. S. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
The Supreme Court extended the jurisdiction of a High Powered Committee overseeing elephant welfare to Pan India, clarified the scope of earlier orders, and emphasized the role of private trusts in animal rescue while curbing frivolous PILs.
2be5b7f0922e21e90e0d27a3b3f0a1aa661e60364f6b59c1420a6dc7c6f38a7d
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a murder case by holding that confessions of co-accused must be voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Nikhil Chandra Mandal v. West Bengal State
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal in a murder case, holding that extra-judicial confessions require careful scrutiny and that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with acquittals based on credibility findings.
4f814d20bc464c9dcb895b242615c35b714c90930e33be5906c11508876020c5
The Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction due to unreliable confessions by co-accused and insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC.
Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal in a murder case, holding that extra-judicial confession without reliable corroboration cannot sustain conviction and appellate interference in acquittal requires perversity or illegality.
Karan v. Madhya Pradesh State
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, set aside the death sentence, upheld conviction, and ordered release under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that a person found to be a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 at the time of offence cannot be sentenced beyond the Act's limits, set aside the death sentence, upheld conviction, and ordered immediate release after excess incarceration.
Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction but set aside the death sentence after holding he was a juvenile below 16 years at the time of the offence, ordering his immediate release as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
State of Haryana v. Satpal
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land reserved for school and playground cannot be regularized and directed eviction of encroachers within 12 months.
Haryana State v. Satpal & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that illegal encroachment of Gram Panchayat land reserved for school and playground purposes cannot be regularized by payment of market value and directed eviction of encroachers within 12 months.
Haryana State v. Satpal
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land designated for school playgrounds cannot be regularized by payment of market value and must be evicted to preserve public interest.
State of Haryana v. Satpal
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land reserved for school premises cannot be legalized and directed eviction within 12 months, setting aside the High Court's order permitting regularization on payment or exchange.
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust
The Supreme Court approved the Resolution Plan for Reliance Home Finance Limited under Article 142, allowing dissenting debenture holders to opt out, thereby balancing expeditious resolution with creditor rights.
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust
The Supreme Court approved the Resolution Plan for Reliance Home Finance Limited under Article 142, allowing dissenting debenture holders to opt out, and held that such approval cannot be granted by the High Court under Section 151 CPC.
Madhya Pradesh State v. Karan
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense, upheld his conviction but set aside the death sentence, directing release under juvenile justice provisions.
M.D. ITI Limited v. K. Muniswamy
The Supreme Court held that clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders grants discretionary power to the employer to continue employees beyond 58 years up to 60 years but does not confer a right, thereby upholding the rollback of retirement age from 60 to 58 years.
M.D. ITI Limited v. K. Muniswamy
The Supreme Court held that clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders grants discretionary power to the employer to continue employees beyond 58 years up to 60 years but does not confer any right on employees to claim continuation, thereby upholding the rollback of retirement age from 60 to 58 years.
M/S HORNBILL CONSULTANTS v. STATE OF PUNJAB
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed refund of earnest money where the appellant's payment delay was due to bank glitches and the government's forfeiture and cancellation were held arbitrary and unreasonable.
M/S HORNBILL CONSULTANTS v. STATE OF PUNJAB
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed refund of earnest money where payment delay was caused by bank technical issues and government forfeiture was held arbitrary and unreasonable.
Future Sector Land Developers LLP & Anr. v. Bagmane Developers P. Ltd. & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that suits involving rights to immovable property must be filed in courts having territorial jurisdiction over the property, and upheld the return of plaint on this ground while setting aside the order rejecting the plaint.