Supreme Court of India

17,536 judgments

Year:

Rohan Dhungat v. The State of Goa

05 Jan 2023 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that the period of parole must be excluded from the calculation of 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, dismissing the convicts' appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant parole premature release actual imprisonment Goa Prisons Rules, 2006

K. SREEDHAR v. M/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

05 Jan 2023 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition against the DRT order and misapplied procedural rules and Section 31(i) exemption, restoring the sale under SARFAESI Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 Section 31(i) exemption agricultural land

B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam

05 Jan 2023 · M.R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act initiated from a private civil dispute, holding such initiation an abuse of process of law.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 482 CrPC abuse of process quashing of criminal proceedings

Basavaraj v. Padmavathi

05 Jan 2023 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance, holding that failure to produce bank documents does not negate readiness and willingness to perform a contract.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness agreement to sell earnest money

Basavaraj v. Padmavathi

05 Jan 2023 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance, holding that absence of documentary proof does not negate readiness and willingness to perform the contract unless specifically called for.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness agreement to sell earnest money

Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Another v. Prudent ARC Limited & Others

05 Jan 2023 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, a borrower challenging an auction sale must deposit 50% of the full debt including interest as pre-deposit, without adjustment of auction sale proceeds deposited by the purchaser.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Section 18 pre-deposit debt due

Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Another v. Prudent ARC Limited & Others

05 Jan 2023 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower must deposit 50% of the full debt including interest as pre-deposit without adjustment of auction sale proceeds when challenging the sale.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Section 18 pre-deposit debt due

M/s. Shekhar Resorts Limited v. Union of India

05 Jan 2023 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal directing acceptance of settlement dues under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme despite delayed payment caused by a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing that legal impossibility precludes penalization.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code moratorium service tax settlement legal impossibility

Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd & Ors

05 Jan 2023 · Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that the 2019 amendment to Section 29A excludes international commercial arbitrations from mandatory timelines, allowing the arbitral tribunal to continue proceedings expeditiously without automatic termination of mandate.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 29A Arbitration Act International commercial arbitration Mandatory timeline Arbitral award

Deepak Ananda Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Jan 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2023 INSC 11
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that disqualification of cooperative society members under Section 11 requires individual enquiry and disclosure of all material to comply with natural justice, setting aside omnibus orders lacking such procedural fairness.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 11 jurisdiction natural justice disclosure of material

Deepak Ananda Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Jan 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that disqualifying cooperative society members without individual enquiry and disclosure of material violates natural justice, setting aside prior orders and remanding for fresh proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 11 jurisdiction natural justice disclosure of material

Sabarmati Gas Limited v. Shah Alloys Limited

04 Jan 2023 · Ajay Rastogi; C.T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that the suspension period under Section 22 of SICA is excludable for limitation under IBC and that a plausible pre-existing dispute mandates dismissal of a Section 9 application at the threshold.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 9 IBC Section 22 SICA Limitation Act, 1963

IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. SICGIL INDIA LIMITED

04 Jan 2023 · A. S. Bopanna; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal's rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 59 is summary and cannot be invoked to adjudicate violations of SEBI regulations, which fall exclusively within SEBI's regulatory domain.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant rectification of register Section 59 Companies Act, 2013 SEBI (SAST) Regulations SEBI (PIT) Regulations

IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. SICGIL INDIA LIMITED

04 Jan 2023 · A. S. Bopanna; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of SEBI regulations under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, affirming SEBI's exclusive regulatory and adjudicatory authority.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant rectification jurisdiction Section 59 Companies Act 2013 Section 111A Companies Act 1956 SEBI (SAST) Regulations 1997

Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd.

03 Jan 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that procurement of Ayurvedic medicines under the National AYUSH Mission must be through a transparent tender process involving all eligible entities, and exclusive nomination of IMPCL without tender violates Article 14.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Article 14 government contracts procurement tender process

K C Theatre v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

03 Jan 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2023 INSC 6
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that cinema hall owners may lawfully prohibit outside food inside theatres, and the High Court erred in directing otherwise under its writ jurisdiction absent statutory mandate.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 226 jurisdiction Article 19(1)(g) right to trade Article 21 right to life Jammu and Kashmir Cinemas Regulation Rules 1975

K C Theatre v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

03 Jan 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that cinema hall owners may prohibit outside food inside theatres as a legitimate business decision, setting aside the High Court's direction that such prohibition violates fundamental rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 226 jurisdiction Article 19(1)(g) right to trade Article 21 right to health Cinema hall private property

Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

03 Jan 2023 · Sanjiv Khanna; M. M. Sundresh · 2023 INSC 5
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court held that interest embedded in hire-purchase instalments is not taxable under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974 as it does not constitute interest on loans and advances.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Interest-Tax Act, 1974 hire-purchase agreement interest on loans and advances interest tax liability

Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

03 Jan 2023 · Sanjiv Khanna; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that interest embedded in hire-purchase instalments does not qualify as taxable interest under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974, and set aside the High Court's contrary ruling.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Interest-Tax Act, 1974 hire-purchase agreement interest on loans and advances Section 2(7) Interest-Tax Act

Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

02 Jan 2023 · Sanjiv Khanna; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Jotun India and others, holding that the allegations constituted a civil dispute and did not disclose offences under Sections 405, 420, or 471 IPC, emphasizing careful scrutiny before summoning in criminal cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant criminal breach of trust Section 406 IPC cheating forgery