Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
WAVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD v. STATE OF U.P.
The Supreme Court held that accrued tax liabilities arising before a slump sale agreement remain the seller's responsibility and cannot be transferred to the purchaser by generic contingent liability clauses.
Gokal Chand v. Axis Bank Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that retention of insurance premium after a normal medical test creates a presumption of contract acceptance, and repudiation after the insured's death with an ante-dated postponement letter amounts to deficiency in service, directing the insurer to honor the claim.
Kumari Laxmi Saroj v. State of U.P.
The Supreme Court held that candidates cannot be disqualified for non-possession of mandatory registration due to procedural delays beyond their control and directed their appointment accordingly.
Gokal Chand v. Axis Bank Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that retention of insurance premium after a normal medical test and repudiation of claim post death intimation with an ante-dated letter amounts to malafide conduct, directing the insurer to honor the claim.
Kalicharan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court set aside convictions due to improper charge framing and failure to put material evidence to accused under Section 313 CrPC, and held that unlawful assembly charges cannot stand with less than five accused.
Kalicharan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court set aside convictions due to failure to frame proper charges and omission to put material circumstances under Section 313 CrPC, and held that offences under Sections 148 and 149 IPC require at least five accused to constitute unlawful assembly.
Hariharan v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao
The Supreme Court upheld inter-se seniority fixed by rotation of quota for direct recruits and promotees in Income Tax Inspectors cadre, referred conflicting precedent to a larger Bench, and vacated interim relief altering seniority.
Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court held that the applicability of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. must be considered at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before framing charges, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration accordingly.
Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court held that the plea under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. must be considered at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration accordingly.
D.N. Krishnappa v. Deputy General Manager
The Supreme Court held that an employee is entitled to full back wages from the date of a reinstatement award that attains finality, despite interim stays, and that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to enforce such awards.
Lucknow Development Authority v. Mehdi Hasan
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 the Act's commencement, even if compensation was not paid under the new Act.
Lucknow Vikas Pratishthan v. Mehdi Hasan
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition completed before the enforcement of the 2013 Rules cannot be invalidated under Rule 24(2) of those Rules, upholding the validity of acquisition under the 1894 Act.
Lucknow Development Authority v. Mehdi Hasan (Deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, even if compensation was not paid at that time.
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others v. Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others
The Supreme Court held that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed within six months of dismissal of a special leave petition, pursuant to liberty reserved by the High Court, is not barred by limitation and must be decided on merits.
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal v. Nayab Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing a reference is mandatory but reckoned from dismissal of the last remedy, allowing the appellants’ reference filed within six months thereafter to be adjudicated on merits.
Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others v. The Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others
The Supreme Court held that a reference for enhancement of compensation filed within six months of dismissal of a writ petition with liberty reserved is not barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and remitted the matter for adjudication on merits.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Karunesh Kumar and Others
The Supreme Court held that the special 1978 Rules prevail over the 2015 Rules in recruitment to Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts and candidates who accept recruitment results cannot later challenge the process.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the later statutory 2015 Rules override the earlier 1978 Rules, denying unsuccessful candidates a waiting list benefit and upholding the recruitment process conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the 2015 recruitment rules override the 1978 special rules, no waiting list exists under the 2015 Rules, and candidates who participated in the process cannot later challenge it, thereby restoring the State's valid recruitment process.
Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim with 70% permanent disability by recognizing the actual impact on earning capacity, granting future prospects, and increasing prosthetic limb and non-pecuniary damages.