Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy
The Supreme Court held that bail granted on default under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled on merits after filing of chargesheet if strong grounds exist, overruling the High Court's bar on such cancellation.
Delhi Development Authority v. Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's declaration of lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, holding that possession taken or compensation paid prevents lapse, clarifying the correct interpretation of the provision.
Delhi Development Authority v. Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's declaration of lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, holding that possession or payment of compensation prevents lapse, and deposit in Treasury constitutes payment.
Kumar Reger v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a CISF constable for suppressing a pending criminal case at appointment, affirming limited judicial interference in disciplinary actions within disciplined forces.
Kumar Reger v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld the removal of a CISF constable for suppressing a pending criminal case at the time of appointment, affirming that such concealment constitutes grave misconduct justifying dismissal.
Delhi Development Authority v. Beena Gupta
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge land acquisition lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, and acquisition does not lapse merely due to non-payment of compensation.
Delhi Development Authority v. Beena Gupta
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 cannot challenge acquisition after award.
Bharat Sarkar v. Rajiv Khan
The Supreme Court upheld the denial of nursing allowance to BSF nursing assistants, distinguishing them from Armed Forces Nursing Service personnel based on qualifications and duties.
Bharat Sarkar v. Rajib Khan & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that nursing assistants are not entitled to nursing allowance equivalent to staff nurses due to differences in qualifications and experience, allowing the Government's appeal and setting aside the High Court's orders.
The Union of India v. Rajib Khan
The Supreme Court held that Nursing Assistants with lower educational qualifications are not entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with Staff Nurses, affirming that pay classification based on qualifications is constitutionally valid.
Bharat Sarkar v. Rajiv Khan
The Supreme Court held that nursing assistants in the BSF are entitled to nursing pay equivalent to nursing staff, setting aside the High Court's denial based on their designation.
Government of India v. Rajib Khan & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that nursing assistants with lower qualifications and experience than staff nurses are not entitled to nursing allowance equivalent to staff nurses, allowing the Government's appeal and setting aside the High Court's contrary order.
Union of India v. Rajib Khan
The Supreme Court held that Nursing Assistants without requisite qualifications are not entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with Staff Nurses, affirming that pay classification based on educational qualifications is constitutionally valid.
M/s Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Deptt N.A.I.C.O. Ltd
The Supreme Court held that where the insurer is unable to reinstate damaged property, the insured is entitled to reinstatement value under the insurance policy, not merely depreciated value, and restored the award accordingly.
K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court held that interest under Section 158BFA(1) is leviable for late filing of block period returns even without notice under Section 158BC prior to amendment, but surcharge under proviso to Section 113 is prospective and not leviable retrospectively.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and clarified that acquisition does not lapse if possession or compensation is completed, excluding periods of litigation stay.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh special road tax on vehicles used without a valid permit, holding it to be a regulatory and compensatory tax within State legislative competence and not a penalty.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of a special road tax imposed by Himachal Pradesh on vehicles used without a valid permit, holding it to be a regulatory and compensatory tax within the State's legislative competence.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Bhagrati
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation remains unpaid, overruling the High Court's contrary decision.
The State of Haryana v. Sushila
The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers and encroachers cannot claim lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession was taken over by the acquiring authority, dismissing their challenge to acquisition proceedings.