Supreme Court of India
16,355 judgments
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
The Supreme Court held that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised before the trial concludes with the pronouncement of final judgment and sentence, and laid down guidelines for its exercise.
Vikramjit Kakati v. State of Assam
The Supreme Court held that in absence of any prima facie material or grave suspicion, the accused must be discharged at the charge framing stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., and accordingly quashed the charges against the appellant.
Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mahipal Singh
The Supreme Court overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken and compensation tendered, allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Subhash Jain
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to pending litigation and compensation was tendered, setting aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Sudesh Verma
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to pending litigation and compensation was tendered, allowing the Government's appeal and setting aside the High Court's order.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Karampal
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and denying subsequent purchasers the right to claim lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Karampal
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and disallowing subsequent purchasers from claiming lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Zubair
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings and that acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation was not tendered.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Zubair
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 has no locus to challenge such proceedings.
Solomon Selvaraj & Ors. v. Indirani Bhagawan Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that an application to sue as indigent persons can be rejected if the plaint discloses no cause of action or is barred by law, but the plaintiff may still institute the suit by paying court fees within a fixed time.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Krishna Saini
The Supreme Court overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, allowing the Government of NCT of Delhi's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Krishna Saini & Ors.
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's declaration of lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying that possession taken or compensation tendered prevents lapse, and upheld the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act.
Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi and Anr. v. Suresh B. Kapur & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, overruling prior inconsistent decisions and allowing the appeal.
Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi and Anr. v. Suresh B. Kapur & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, overruling contrary High Court decisions and clarifying the law in light of Indore Development Authority.
Sunita Devi & Anr. v. The State of Haryana
The Supreme Court allowed pre-arrest bail to appellants cooperating with investigation in a cheating case, setting aside the High Court's refusal of bail.
Sunita Devi & Anr. v. The State of Haryana
The Supreme Court allowed pre-arrest bail to appellants cooperating with investigation in a cheating case, setting aside the High Court's refusal of bail.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. P.S. Jayaprakash; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Siby Mathews
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's anticipatory bail orders in a long-pending espionage-related case, remanding the bail applications for fresh consideration with directions to consider individual roles and the Supreme Court's prior directions.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. P.S. Jayaprakash; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Siby Mathews
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's anticipatory bail orders in a CBI espionage case and remanded the bail applications for fresh consideration based on individual roles and Supreme Court directions.
Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that a candidate acquitted of a criminal offence and who truthfully discloses the same cannot be denied appointment solely on that ground, restoring his appointment as Police Constable.
Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that a candidate acquitted in a criminal case and who truthfully disclosed the same cannot be denied appointment solely on that ground, restoring his candidature for Police Constable.