Supreme Court of India
17,275 judgments
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.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jad Bai
The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused for murder under sections 302 and 34 IPC, holding that active participation by catching the deceased establishes common intention.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jad Bai
The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused for murder under sections 302 and 34 IPC, holding that active participation and failure to explain incriminating conduct establish common intention.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi
The Supreme Court held that a suit filed beyond the limitation period and with concurrent findings of consent and waiver cannot be allowed, setting aside the High Court's interference and restoring dismissal of the suit.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's dismissal of a suit for acquisition compensation as barred by limitation, holding that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings.
K. Palaniswamy v. M. Shanmugam
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim reliefs restraining unauthorized General Council meetings in AIADMK, emphasizing adherence to party byelaws and limited judicial interference in internal party affairs.
Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M. Shanmugam & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a special General Council meeting convened on requisition by party members without joint authorization or 15 days' notice, dismissing interim injunctions and emphasizing limited judicial interference in internal political party disputes.
Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi
The Supreme Court held that the Odisha Lokayukta lawfully directed the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry against an MLA, affirming procedural safeguards and rejecting claims of bias and natural justice violations.
Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi
The Supreme Court upheld the Lokayukta's power under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 to direct the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry, setting aside the High Court's order that violated natural justice and lacked legal basis.
C. Yamini & Others v. The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that ad-hoc service as Fast Track Court Judges does not count as judicial service under Article 217(2)(a) for elevation to the High Court, dismissing the petitioners' claim for seniority and elevation benefits.