Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
Sanwarlal Agrawal v. Ashok Kumar Kothari
The Supreme Court held that an executing court cannot expand a decree passed on admission by including disputed loan amounts not agreed upon, and set aside the High Court's order that construed the decree to include such loans.
Yogesh Upadhyay and Anr. v. Atlanta Limited
The Supreme Court held that despite exclusive territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court’s power to transfer cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact and allowed transfer of cheque bounce cases for joint trial.
Yogesh Upadhyay and Anr. v. Atlanta Limited
The Supreme Court allowed transfer of cheque bounce complaint cases arising from the same transaction to a single court, holding that the non obstante clause in Section 142 does not bar transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
Juharu v. Karim & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified the cautious exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused, upholding summons against one appellant while setting aside summons against others for lack of sufficient evidence.
Juharu v. Karim
The Supreme Court clarified the limited and discretionary scope of Section 319 CrPC powers to summon additional accused, upholding summons against one appellant while setting aside summons against two others for lack of evidence.
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LTD. & OTHERS v. GULSHAN PRAKASH
The Supreme Court remitted appeals concerning compassionate appointments under the NCWA to the High Court for expeditious merit-based disposal, while maintaining interim stay orders.
MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. v. MAHENDRA JAIN
The Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed through a power of attorney holder with sub-delegated authority and personal knowledge is maintainable, restoring trial court orders and allowing the appeal.
MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. v. MAHENDRA JAIN
The Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed through a duly authorised power of attorney holder who has personal knowledge of the transaction is maintainable, and sub-delegation of authority is valid if expressly permitted in the power of attorney.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the legality and constitutionality of differential compensation to 'Pukka' and 'Non-Pukka' landowners under land acquisition laws, dismissing challenges based on Article 14 and agreements executed by appellants.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court struck down the differential compensation classification between Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini landowners as violative of Article 14, holding that signing compensation agreements does not bar subsequent challenges to enhanced compensation.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of differential compensation between 'Pukka' and 'Non-Pukka' landowners under land acquisition laws, dismissing challenges based on Article 14 and affirming waiver by acceptance of compensation agreements.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court struck down the differential compensation classification between Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini landowners as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, holding that signing compensation agreements does not bar seeking revised compensation arising later.
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
The Supreme Court held that DNA testing of a child born during marriage cannot be directed without strong prima-facie evidence of non-access to rebut the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
Apurna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
The Supreme Court upheld the order directing DNA testing of a child in a matrimonial dispute, affirming the rebuttable presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 and balancing the child's rights with the need for truth.
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
The Supreme Court held that DNA testing of a child born during marriage cannot be directed without proof of non-access to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, and set aside lower court orders directing such test.
Sureshkumar Lavilatkumar Patel v. Gujarat State
The Supreme Court held that cut-off marks fixed in recruitment advertisements cannot be reduced arbitrarily after the selection process has commenced, upholding the principle of fairness and equality under Article 14.
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that reduction of cut-off marks after recruitment results are published is impermissible and upheld candidates' rights to be considered under original advertised criteria, setting aside the Gujarat High Court's decision.
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court held that reducing cut-off marks after publication of results to accommodate horizontal reservation without amending the advertisement is arbitrary and violates Article 14, thereby restoring original selection criteria while directing accommodation of special category candidates within permissible reservation limits.
Khora Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Mohar Sai & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that Revenue Authorities' orders do not bar civil suits on title where the transferee is a tribal and affirmed civil court jurisdiction to decide genuineness of land transactions under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Krishan Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and affirming the Indore Development Authority judgment.