Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajmati Singh
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.
Rajasthan State v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court restored Gurbachan Singh's murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that he shared common intention with co-accused despite limited individual role.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited
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.
Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi
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.
Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod
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.
Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod
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.
Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
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.
Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India
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.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak v. Merino Panel Product Ltd.
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.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak v. Merino Panel Product Ltd.
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.
Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan
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.
Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan
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.
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.
Rajasthan State v. Phool Singh
The Supreme Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle reinstatement in service where disciplinary proceedings have established misconduct on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
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.