Supreme Court of India
17,536 judgments
Imlikokla Longchar & Ors. v. State of Nagaland & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld that eligibility criteria under the 2003 Rules must be strictly followed for promotion and seniority, dismissing the appellants' claim to seniority over respondent no.4 due to non-fulfillment of the five-year continuous service requirement.
Lalankumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court held that directors cannot be held liable under Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act without specific averments showing their responsibility for the company's business and quashed the issuance of process against them for lack of such averments and formal order.
Lalankumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court held that directors cannot be held liable under Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act without specific allegations showing they were in charge of and responsible for the company's business, and quashed proceedings against them for lack of such averments and absence of a formal order issuing process.
Y. Sai Satya Prasad v. D. Prabhakara Rao
The Supreme Court held Telangana Power Utilities guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its order on employee allocation finalized by the One Man Committee, affirming the binding nature of the allocation list and directing strict compliance.
M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of land acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for industrial projects, emphasizing strict procedural compliance and public purpose, and dismissed challenges based on environmental clearance and acquisition for single companies.
S. Vasanthi & Anr. v. M/s Adhiparasakthi Engg College & Anr.
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by fixing a higher notional income based on the deceased student's employment prospects and applying established principles for future prospects and personal expenses deductions.
M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. v. M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a purchaser of flats is a consumer entitled to refund with contractual interest where possession is not delivered and cancelled unlawfully, enhancing interest from 9% to 18% per annum.
M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. v. M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a purchaser under an agreement to sell is a consumer entitled to refund with contractual interest at 18% per annum upon unlawful cancellation and non-delivery of possession.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 offence arises only if the dishonoured cheque represents the legally enforceable debt at presentation, and part payments must be endorsed on the cheque, dismissing the appeal against acquittal where part payment reduced the debt.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 offence arises only if the cheque dishonoured represents the legally enforceable debt at presentation, and part payments must be endorsed on the cheque, dismissing the appeal against acquittal where part payment reduced the debt.
Vijay Rajmohan v. State
The Supreme Court held that consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission before granting sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is lawful and that the mandatory three-month time limit for sanction must be observed, but delay does not automatically quash prosecution; instead, the sanctioning authority is accountable.
Vijay Rajmohan v. State
The Supreme Court held that consulting the Central Vigilance Commission does not vitiate sanction for prosecution if the appointing authority applies independent mind, and that the statutory time limit for sanction is mandatory but delay does not automatically quash proceedings.
State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that only the Chancellor has the power to appoint or re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, and the State government's re-appointment order was invalid and set aside.
Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld bail conditions restricting the accused's movement to prevent witness tampering and directed the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously, dismissing the accused's application to relax these conditions.
Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld bail conditions restricting the accused's movement to prevent witness tampering, directed expeditious trial, and allowed temporary limited relief for family reasons.
HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Supreme Court held that writ petitions challenging its own final judgment on RBI's disclosure directives are maintainable to examine the balance between the right to information and the fundamental right to privacy, rejecting preliminary objections and allowing reconsideration by a larger Bench.
HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Supreme Court allowed writ petitions by banks challenging RBI's directions for disclosure under RTI, holding that finality of its earlier judgment is subject to reconsideration in rare cases involving privacy rights and miscarriage of justice.
Ajwar v. Niyaj Ahmad
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order in a murder case, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned orders considering all relevant facts before granting bail in serious offences.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala
The Supreme Court held that an order of termination approved by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is final and binding, and a fresh industrial dispute challenging the same termination is impermissible.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala
The Supreme Court held that an order of termination approved by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is final and binding, and a fresh industrial dispute challenging the same termination is not maintainable.