Supreme Court of India

18,257 judgments

Year:

AMD Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax

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

The Supreme Court held that manufacturing improved goods using modern technology does not constitute 'diversification' under Section 4-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, denying the appellant's claim for trade tax exemption.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant U.P. Trade Tax Act Section 4-A(5) diversification modernization

AMD Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax

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

The Supreme Court held that manufacturing improved goods using modern technology does not amount to diversification under Section 4-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, denying trade tax exemption claimed by the appellant.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant U.P. Trade Tax Act Section 4-A(5) diversification modernization

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

05 Jan 2023 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2023 INSC 13

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 beyond twelve months without automatic termination of its mandate.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Section 29A Arbitration Act International commercial arbitration Arbitral award timeline 2019 Amendment

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd.

05 Jan 2023 · M.R. Shah; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that recoveries under the SARFAESI Act have priority over those under the MSMED Act, and the SARFAESI Act's provisions prevail in case of conflict.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act SARFAESI Act priority of payments secured creditor

Rohan Dhungat v. The State of Goa

05 Jan 2023 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar

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

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

Rohan Dhungat v. The State of Goa

05 Jan 2023 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

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