Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
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.
Haryana Raj v. Sanrajan Sah
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of the Haryana government's refusal to release disputed lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the need for genuine public purpose and non-arbitrariness in land acquisition.
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.
Bhoomi Adhigrahan Collector v. Jai Prakash Yogi
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is deemed complete only if possession and measurement were taken within five years before the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
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.
Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Manoharlal & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, abandonment of acquisition occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, and possession without payment does not amount to abandonment.
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.