Supreme Court of India

8,449 judgments

Year:

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi

24 Feb 2023 · M. R. Shah; C. T. Ravikumar

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation Land Acquisition Act concurrent findings Section 100 CPC

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi

24 Feb 2023 · M. R. Shah; C. T. Ravikumar
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation Land Acquisition Act concurrent findings Section 100 CPC

M. Palanisamy v. M. Shanmugam & Ors.

23 Feb 2023 · Thimesh M. Megashwari; Hrishimegash Rai · 2023 INSC 156

The Supreme Court held that internal management of political parties must adhere to their constitutions and procedural fairness, refusing interim relief against a disputed party meeting and directing expeditious High Court adjudication.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant political party governance AIADMK executive committee internal management

K. Palaniswamy v. M. Shanmugam

23 Feb 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant political party management AIADMK General Council meeting temporary injunction

K. Palanisami v. M. Shanmugam & Ors.

23 Feb 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court remanded disputes over AIADMK's internal leadership and meetings to the High Court, emphasizing adherence to party bylaws and limited judicial interference.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Political party dispute AIADMK Party bylaws Interim injunction

Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M. Shanmugam & Ors.

23 Feb 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Hrishikesh Roy

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.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant political party byelaws temporary injunction General Council meeting joint leadership

e9ce120fe2d009e6260fd59ba5074b5277ac78c18fb8fa23f0cd94a0da809472

23 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; M. R. Shah · 2023 INSC 154
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The court held that the Odisha Lokayukta must conduct preliminary investigations with adherence to natural justice and procedural safeguards, remanding the matter for fresh inquiry.

administrative remanded Significant Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 preliminary investigation natural justice principles of fairness

Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi

23 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 Section 20(1) preliminary inquiry principles of natural justice

69461e537f900b5905364806c899ebdbfe5c5bf1374dd43f99654aed1d7220f6

23 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; M. T. Rao · 2010(12)SCC599
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the Odisha Lokayukta's authority to conduct preliminary investigations under the Act, ruling that procedural safeguards like notice and hearing are not mandatory at this stage, and dismissed the petition challenging the investigation's validity.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Odisha Lokayukta Act 2014 preliminary investigation natural justice notice and hearing

Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi

23 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 preliminary inquiry principles of natural justice rule against bias

C. Yamini & Others v. The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi & Anr.

23 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 0 · Cited by 10

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.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 217(2)(a) Constitution of India Fast Track Courts Judicial service Seniority

Union of India v. Indian Navy Design Officers Association

22 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi · 2008 (S) 1006
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that pay scale fixation is an executive function and rejected the Tribunal and High Court orders directing equal pay for Junior Design Officers and Assistant Technical Officers, affirming the pay disparity based on differing duties and recruitment rules.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant equal pay for equal work pay scale fixation classification of posts Junior Design Officer

Bharat Sangh v. Bharatiya Nausena Civilian Design Officers Association

22 Feb 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Ved
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that pay scale fixation is an administrative function and refused to equate Junior Design Officers' pay with Senior Technical Officers', emphasizing that 'equal pay for equal work' requires consideration of qualitative differences and judicial interference is limited.

labor appeal_allowed Significant equal pay for equal work pay scale fixation classification of posts judicial review

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

22 Feb 2023 · Sanjiv Khanna; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of two appellants based on credible identification and disclosure but acquitted a third appellant due to lack of reliable evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed and appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 392 IPC

Jagdish and Prakash v. Rajasthan State

22 Feb 2023 · Sanjiiv Khanna; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of two appellants based on credible identification and evidence, acquitted a third appellant due to unreliable evidence, and modified the charges and sentences accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder conviction eyewitness identification Section 302 IPC Section 392 IPC

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

22 Feb 2023 · Sanjiv Khanna; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court upheld murder convictions of two appellants based on credible identification and evidence, acquitted them of robbery-murder charge, and acquitted the third appellant due to insufficient evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed and appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 392 IPC

Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu

22 Feb 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother for the murder of her child based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances when last seen with the victim.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder circumstantial evidence last seen theory Section 302 IPC

Gujarat State v. H. B. Kapadiya Education Trust

21 Feb 2023 · R. Maheshwari; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the State's refusal to grant aid for a minority educational institution's principal beyond retirement age, ruling that reasonable regulations under the Grant-in-Aid Code do not violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 30(1) minority educational institutions grant-in-aid retirement age

Gujarat State v. H. B. Kapadia Education Trust

21 Feb 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court held that minority educational institutions receiving government aid must comply with retirement age rules under the Grant-in-Aid Code, and refusal to grant aid beyond retirement age does not violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 30(1) minority educational institutions retirement age grant-in-aid

Sanwarlal Agrawal v. Ashok Kumar Kothari

21 Feb 2023 · Krishna Murari; S. Ravindra Bhat · 2023 INSC 149
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that an executing court cannot enlarge a decree by including terms not agreed upon, setting aside the High Court's order that included a disputed loan amount in the consideration for share transfer.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance execution of decree decree ambiguity going behind decree