Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
Delhi Development Authority v. Shyamo & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, and a petitioner must establish ownership before challenging acquisition.
Delhi Development Authority v. Shyamo & Ors.
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 was not paid to a claimant who was not the recorded owner, and dismissed the writ petition challenging acquisition on that ground.
Delhi Development Authority v. Asha Prakash
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and clarified that acquisition lapses only if both possession and compensation are lacking, overruling prior conflicting precedents.
Delhi Development Authority v. Rajesh Dua
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation paid, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Delhi Development Authority v. Rambir
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken and compensation tendered before the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. Rambir
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to its commencement, even if compensation was not tendered or deposited.
Delhi Development Authority v. Bhagi Singh
The Supreme Court held that valid possession taken before the 2013 Act prevents lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2), allowing the Delhi Development Authority's appeal against the High Court's declaration of lapse.
Delhi Development Authority v. Bhagi Singh
The Supreme Court held that possession taken prior to the 2013 Act precludes lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2), setting aside the High Court's contrary decision.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nem Chand Sharma
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedents and allowing the Delhi Development Authority's appeal.
Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of temporary acquisition but directed ONGC to complete permanent acquisition within a year, emphasizing that prolonged temporary acquisition violates landowners' constitutional rights.
Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld temporary acquisition of land by ONGC but directed completion of permanent acquisition within 12 months and recognized landowners' right to fair compensation under Article 300A.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Om Prakash
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 was not fully paid.
Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Hage Mamung
The Supreme Court held that a Public Service Commission’s decision to cancel questions with wrong answer keys and award pro-rata marks to all candidates is lawful, and courts cannot order re-evaluation of select candidates’ papers absent statutory authority.
Delhi Development Authority v. Shakuntla Devi
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 has not been paid or tendered.
Delhi Development Authority v. Shakuntla Devi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, overruling the High Court's contrary decision.
Saurav Das v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that chargesheets under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are not required to be published on State websites, distinguishing them from FIRs, and dismissed the petition seeking such public access.
Elumalai @ Venkatesan v. M. Kamala
The Supreme Court held that a Release Deed executed by a father for valuable consideration estops his heirs from claiming a share in the grandfather's separate property despite their status as Class I heirs under Hindu law.
Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court converted the appellant's murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, recognizing his right to private defence against an aggressor party.
Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti
The Supreme Court held that prior approval of the Director of Education under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is mandatory before terminating an employee of a recognized institution, even after disciplinary enquiry, and set aside the High Court's contrary decision.
Union of India v. Const Sunil Kumar
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF personnel for misconduct, ruling that criminal classifications of offences do not limit disciplinary penalties and that judicial interference in such punishments is limited to cases of striking disproportion.