Supreme Court of India

8,449 judgments

Year:

Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

29 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the public interest litigation for fresh consideration, directing strict enforcement of pharmacy regulations to protect public health.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Pharmacy Act 1948 Pharmacy Practice Regulations 2015 registered pharmacist fake pharmacist

Sansera Engineering Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru

29 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, are subject to the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and claims beyond this period are barred.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 11B Central Excise Act Rebate of duty Limitation period Central Excise Rules 2002

Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors.

28 Nov 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C.T. Ravikumar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against appellants in a family property dispute, holding that the allegations did not prima facie constitute offences and the prosecution was an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings abuse of process mala fide prosecution

Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors.

28 Nov 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C.T. Ravikumar · 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against appellants where allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence and were instituted with mala fide to harass, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings abuse of process mala fide prosecution

Uttar Pradesh State v. Preem Singh & Ors.

25 Nov 2022 · Sanjay Vikash Kaul; Abhay S. Oka; Vikram Nath · 2022 INSC 1232
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board's functions do not include determining service conditions of its employees, which is the exclusive domain of the State Government, and upheld the binding nature of State Government directions on pension schemes and service conditions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board Act, 1965 service conditions pension scheme New Pension Scheme

Uttar Pradesh State v. Veerendra Kumar & Ors.

25 Nov 2022 · Sanjay Vikash Kaul; Abhay S. Oka; Vikram Nath
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that under the Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board Act, 1965, only the State Government has the authority to determine the service conditions and pension schemes of Board employees, dismissing the Board's unilateral pension scheme implementation.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board Act, 1965 service conditions pension scheme New Pension Scheme

State of U.P. v. Virendra Kumar

25 Nov 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Abhay S. Oka; Vikram Nath

The Supreme Court upheld that the Board alone has the statutory power to determine service conditions of its employees through Regulations, and the State Government cannot override these by issuing directions except by framing Rules under the Act.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad pension scheme service conditions statutory regulations

Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Dutt Sharma

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

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 is unpaid, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the Government's appeal.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 land acquisition lapse possession and compensation Pune Municipal Corporation overruled

Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh v. Union of India & Ors.

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court upheld Maharashtra's 2011 Government Resolution protecting barren and grassy village lands for public use, ruling it does not infringe the Vadar community's traditional stone extraction rights under Rule 4A.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Government Resolution 12.07.2011 Vadar community Rule 4A Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules 1968 Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab

Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh v. Union of India & Ors.

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the Maharashtra Government Resolution restricting unauthorized use of barren and common village lands, ruling it does not infringe the Vadar community's traditional stone extraction rights under Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Government Resolution 12.07.2011 Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules 1968 Rule 4A

The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. v. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr.

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition cannot be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken, even if compensation was not paid due to ownership disputes.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition deemed lapse possession

The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. v. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr.

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

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 tendered, overruling earlier contrary decisions.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 deemed lapse of acquisition possession and compensation Land Acquisition Act 1894

Parivar Seva Sanstha v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

24 Nov 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; J.K. Maheshwari
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that exemption from property tax under Section 132(b) of the GPMC Act does not apply when tax is levied on the carpet area method under Section 141AA, and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8B(4)(i) classifying hospitals and clinics for taxation purposes.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant property tax Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 carpet area method tax exemption

Parivar Seva Sanstha v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

24 Nov 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that exemption from property tax under Section 132(1)(b) of the GPMC Act applies only to tax levied on rateable value and upheld the constitutionality of tax classification under Rule 8B(4)(i) against Article 14 challenge.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant property tax Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 carpet area method rateable value

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Radheshyam & Ors.

24 Nov 2022 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's valuation and deduction orders in a land acquisition case, directing fresh determination of market value and development charge deductions based on relevant evidence and settled principles.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 market value determination development charges deduction large tract of land valuation

Zila Parishad, Thane v. Santosh Tukaram Tiware

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that prolonged contractual service without due selection does not entitle an employee to regularization and set aside the High Court's order directing regularization and quashing termination.

labor appeal_allowed Significant contractual employment regularization temporary appointment termination order

Mrs. Ramani v. Tamil Nadu Slum-Clearance Board

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh · 2022 INSC 1226

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of an illegal allotment of land reserved for public convenience and dismissed the petition challenging unauthorized construction without municipal approval.

property appeal_dismissed Significant public convenience town planning scheme allotment cancellation unauthorized construction

Mrs. Ramani v. Tamil Nadu Slum-Clearance Board

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of allotment of a plot reserved for public convenience and dismissed the petitioner's challenge to unauthorized construction on the plot.

property appeal_dismissed Significant public convenience town planning scheme allotment cancellation unauthorized construction

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 23 v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills

24 Nov 2022 · M.R. Shah; M.M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that crediting revalued assets to partners' capital accounts in a partnership constitutes a taxable transfer under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, overruling earlier decisions and allowing the Revenue's appeal.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 45(4) Income Tax Act capital gains tax partnership firm revaluation transfer of capital assets

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 23 v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills

24 Nov 2022 · M. R. Shah; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that crediting revalued assets to partners' capital accounts in a partnership firm constitutes a transfer under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, attracting capital gains tax even without dissolution of the firm.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 45(4) Income Tax Act capital gains tax partnership firm revaluation transfer of capital assets