Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

Delhi Development Authority v. Dayanand

09 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken, and a subsequent purchaser lacks locus to claim such lapse.

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

Delhi Development Authority v. Dayanand

09 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, and a subsequent purchaser lacks locus to claim lapse.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Act 2013 land acquisition lapse of acquisition proceedings subsequent purchaser locus

Kamla Neti v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.

09 Dec 2022 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribes are excluded from succession rights under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and dismissed the appeal for share in land acquisition compensation, urging legislative amendment for gender parity.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Succession Act Scheduled Tribe succession rights land acquisition compensation

Delhi Development Authority v. Raj Singh

09 Dec 2022 · M. R. Shah; C. T. Ravikumar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

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 paid/tendered, overruling the High Court's contrary decision.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 possession

Kamla Neti v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.

09 Dec 2022 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribes are excluded from succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act due to statutory exemption, dismissing the claim for share in land acquisition compensation.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Succession Act Scheduled Tribe succession rights land acquisition compensation

NEPA LIMITED v. MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL

08 Dec 2022 · SANJIV KHANNA; SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court held that interest at 18% per annum is payable only on the net principal amount after adjustment of withdrawn sums from the date of withdrawal, not on the entire awarded amount, setting aside the High Court’s contrary order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Order XXI Rule 1 CPC Interest on decree Withdrawal of deposit

Ramcharan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

07 Dec 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants convicted of murder due to serious doubts in prosecution evidence and violation of parity, emphasizing careful scrutiny of interested witnesses and dying declarations.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC dying declaration interested witness principle of parity

The State of Rajasthan v. Gurbachan Singh & Others

07 Dec 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sudhanshu Dhulia
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that Gurbachan Singh shared common intention with co-accused in the murder of Teja Singh and restored his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, overturning the High Court's acquittal on that count.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant common intention Section 34 IPC murder Section 302 IPC

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajmati Singh

07 Dec 2022 · Surya Kant; J.K. Maheshwari
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a belated service claim after over three decades is barred by delay, laches, and limitation, and rejected reinstatement and arrears, awarding only lump-sum compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant service law delay and laches limitation abandonment of employment

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajmati Singh

07 Dec 2022 · Surya Kant; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that a belated service claim after over three decades is barred by limitation and laches, setting aside the High Court's order reinstating the employee and awarding arrears.

civil appeal_allowed Significant service law limitation delay and laches reinstatement

Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited

06 Dec 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that possession of land allotted to Metro for a public project is lawful despite pending civil litigation, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to stall such possession.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 Section 39 Article 226 writ petition maintainability

Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi

06 Dec 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Abhay S. Oka
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a property transfer by a senior citizen can be declared void under Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act only if it was made subject to a condition of maintenance which the transferee failed to fulfill, and set aside orders invalidating a release deed lacking such condition.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 23 transfer of property senior citizen maintenance

Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod

06 Dec 2022 · Krishna Murari; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court held that Income Tax Returns must be relied upon for income estimation in motor accident claims, fixed appropriate deductions and future prospects, enhanced conventional heads, and awarded compensation with 9% interest, modifying the High Court’s award accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation Income Tax Return future prospects

Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod

06 Dec 2022 · Krishna Murari; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that Income Tax Returns must be relied upon for income determination in motor accident claims, adjusted deductions and future prospects apply, and awarded enhanced compensation with 9% interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation Income Tax Return personal expenses deduction

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab

05 Dec 2022 · S. Abdul Nazeer; B. R. Gavai; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubraman...
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused must be exercised before trial conclusion, i.e., before judgment and sentence, and laid down guidelines for its exercise.

criminal other Significant Section 319 CrPC summoning additional accused trial conclusion judgment and sentence

Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India

05 Dec 2022 · A. S. Bopanna; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of GST evasion involving clandestine tobacco transportation, emphasizing conditions to secure trial and noting the primarily documentary nature of evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC GST evasion Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak v. Merino Panel Product Ltd.

05 Dec 2022 · Surya Kant; J. B. Pardiwala
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that excise duty valuation for goods sold partly to related and partly to independent parties must use the normal price charged to independent buyers as benchmark per the binding CBEC Circular, allowing the appeal and confirming duty demand but disallowing penalties and interest.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 related party transactions assessable value

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak v. Merino Panel Product Ltd.

05 Dec 2022 · Surya Kant; J. B. Pardiwala
Cites 3 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the Revenue's valuation method for excise duty on related party sales consistent with a binding CBEC Circular, allowed the appeal, but disallowed penalties and extended limitation period.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 CBEC Circular 01.07.2002 related party transactions

Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan

05 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that without a Section 10 notification or proof of sham contract, contract labourers employed by a contractor do not automatically become employees of the principal employer.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 Section 10 notification contract labour principal employer

Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan

05 Dec 2022 · M.R. Shah; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that in absence of a Section 10 notification prohibiting contract labour and no sham contract, contract labourers remain employees of the contractor and not the principal employer, setting aside orders of reinstatement and absorption.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 Section 10 notification contract labour principal employer