Supreme Court of India

8,449 judgments

Year:

M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

11 Oct 2022 · Hemant Gupta; Vikram Nath

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 public purpose environmental clearance

S. Vasanthi & Anr. v. M/s Adhiparasakthi Engg College & Anr.

11 Oct 2022 · B. R. Gavai; C. T. Ravikumar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 notional income compensation

M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. v. M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.

11 Oct 2022 · Aniruddha Bose; Vikram Nath

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 agreement to sell possession refund

M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. v. M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.

11 Oct 2022 · Aniruddha Bose; Vikram Nath

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 agreement to sell possession refund

Dashrathbhai Tritrakambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel

11 Oct 2022 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hima Kohli · 2022 INSC 1067

The court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only if a legally enforceable debt exists at cheque presentation, and partial payment before presentation negates criminal liability for cheque dishonour.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Legally enforceable debt Partial payment

Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.

11 Oct 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dishonour of cheque legally enforceable debt part payment

Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors.

11 Oct 2022 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply if the cheque represents a debt partially discharged before presentation, and the legal notice must specify the cheque amount to be valid.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Legally enforceable debt Partial payment

Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.

11 Oct 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dishonour of cheque legally enforceable debt part payment

Vijay Rajmohan v. State

11 Oct 2022 · B. R. Gavai; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2022 INSC 1066

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sanction for prosecution Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Central Vigilance Commission application of mind

Vijay Rajmohan v. State

11 Oct 2022 · B. R. Gavai; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sanction for prosecution Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Central Vigilance Commission independent application of mind

State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors.

11 Oct 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Vice-Chancellor appointment Calcutta University Act 1979 Section 8(2)(a) amendment State government powers

Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

10 Oct 2022 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

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.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant bail conditions restriction on movement witness tampering trial delay

Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

10 Oct 2022 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

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.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant bail conditions influence on witnesses trial delay expeditious trial

HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

30 Sep 2022 · B. R. Gavai; C. T. Ravikumar · 2022 INSC 1056

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.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Reserve Bank of India Right to privacy Article 32 of Constitution

HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

30 Sep 2022 · B.R. Gavai; C.T. Ravikumar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

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.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Reserve Bank of India Confidentiality Right to Privacy

Ajwar v. Niyaj Ahmad

30 Sep 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hima Kohli
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail reasoned order serious offence murder

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala

30 Sep 2022 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari

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.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b) Section 10 termination of service

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala

30 Sep 2022 · M. R. Shah; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b) Section 10 termination of service

Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research

30 Sep 2022 · M.R. Shah; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that an NGO lacked locus standi to challenge tender conditions for ground handling services and upheld the Airport Authority of India's eligibility criteria as not arbitrary or discriminatory.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant tender conditions locus standi judicial review Article 226

Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research

30 Sep 2022 · M.R. Shah; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that an NGO without direct aggrievement lacks locus standi to challenge government tender conditions, which are commercial decisions not subject to judicial interference unless arbitrary or mala fide, and accordingly set aside the High Court's order invalidating the Airport Authority of India's tender criteria.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant tender conditions eligibility criteria locus standi judicial review