Supreme Court of India

18,256 judgments

Year:

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

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

02 Jan 2023 · Sanjiv Khanna; J.K. Maheshwari
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Jotun India Pvt. Ltd. and others, holding that the allegations amounted to a civil dispute and did not satisfy the ingredients of criminal offences under Sections 405, 406, 420, or 471 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant criminal breach of trust Section 406 IPC cheating Section 420 IPC

Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

02 Jan 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for the murder of his two sons by manual strangulation based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and rejected the belated plea of mental incapacity.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence manual strangulation Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

02 Jan 2023 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Sudhanshu Dhulia
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a father for the murder of his two sons by manual strangulation based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and rejected the plea of mental incapacity raised late.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence manual strangulation Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh

01 Jan 2023 · V. Ramasubramanian; B.V. Nagarathna · 2023 INSC 4

The Supreme Court held that reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) are exhaustive, fundamental rights are enforceable only against the State, and Ministers’ official statements can attract State liability, while emphasizing the need for a voluntary code of conduct for Ministers.

constitutional other Significant Article 19(1)(a) Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions free speech

Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust & Ors. v. The Chairman & Anr.

01 Jan 2023 · Bela M. Trivedi; Dipankar Datta

The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed in accordance with consent terms approved by the High Court is not barred by limitation, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Reference Court's award.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18 limitation Consent terms Reference Court

Iqram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

16 Dec 2022 · Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that sentences in multiple convictions must run concurrently if the trial court does not specifically order otherwise, setting aside the High Court's order of consecutive sentences to prevent miscarriage of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 427 CrPC concurrent sentence consecutive sentence plea bargain

Iqram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

16 Dec 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that multiple sentences imposed in separate trials should run concurrently unless the court specifically directs otherwise, allowing the appellant's appeal and setting aside the High Court's order of consecutive sentences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 427 CrPC concurrent sentence consecutive sentence plea bargain

CISF and Others v. Santosh Kumar Pandey

16 Dec 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the removal of a CISF constable for misconduct, clarifying the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and rejecting the High Court's interference based on evidence reappraisal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings judicial review Articles 226 and 227 removal from service

Rajaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh

16 Dec 2022 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudhanshu Dhulia
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 498A IPC due to discrediting of the sole incriminating dying declaration against the appellant and lack of other supporting evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 498A IPC Section 32 Evidence Act multiple dying declarations

DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India

16 Dec 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court upheld the removal of a CISF constable for deliberate suppression of pending criminal case at appointment, affirming limited judicial interference in disciplinary actions within disciplined forces.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant suppression of criminal antecedents disciplinary proceedings CISF Rules 2001 judicial review

Manusha Sreekumar & Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

15 Dec 2022 · Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for loss of dependency by fixing the deceased's income based on statutory minimum wages, limiting appellate interference with fact findings, and upheld non-conventional heads awarded by the High Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loss of dependency motor vehicle accident compensation quantum notional income

Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

15 Dec 2022 · S. ABDUL NAZEER; J.K. MAHESHWARI · 2022 INSC 1282

The Supreme Court upheld the liability of the vehicle owner for compensation due to invalid permit and violation of insurance terms, emphasizing strict adherence to the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 and expeditious claim settlement procedures.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 permit validity insurance liability

Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

15 Dec 2022 · S. ABDUL NAZEER; J.K. MAHESHWARI

The Supreme Court upheld the liability of the vehicle owner for compensation in a fatal motor accident due to invalid permit and emphasized adherence to the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 procedural framework for expeditious claim settlement.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim permit validity insurance liability Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019

Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Ram Prakash Sehrawat

15 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken, even if compensation was unpaid, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition lapse possession and compensation tendering compensation

Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Ram Prakash Sehrawat

15 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition lapse possession and compensation tender of compensation

Delhi Development Authority v. Chandermal

15 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that lawful possession taken by the Land Acquisition Collector prevents deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act despite non-payment of compensation.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 possession compensation