Supreme Court of India
16,355 judgments
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd Rehan Khan
The Supreme Court held that failure to fulfill prescribed conditions in compassionate appointment rules justifies termination and courts cannot direct appointment to alternate posts beyond the rules.
Pillamma v. M. Ramaiah Reddy
The Supreme Court upheld occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, ruling that failure to establish tenancy under the Inams Abolition Act, 1954 does not bar claims based on possession on the vesting date.
Sau Rajani v. Sau Smita
The Supreme Court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for removal of unauthorized construction affecting individual rights on Authority premises despite statutory bars under the MHADA Act.
Sau Rajani v. Sau Smita
The Supreme Court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for removal of unauthorized construction and protection of easements despite statutory eviction powers vested in the Maharashtra Housing Authority, and set aside the High Court's bar of jurisdiction ruling.
K. S. Sahu v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the lawful withdrawal of a naval cadet from officer training based on deficiency in character and officer-like qualities, affirming the delegated authority's decision and procedural fairness.
Shirdi Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi v. Appasaheb Narayan Chaudhari & Others
The Supreme Court remanded a writ petition for fresh consideration after new evidence of private acquisition and compensation was produced, emphasizing the need for fair opportunity to both parties.
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI v. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
The Supreme Court held that supply of pre-packaged antivirus software on physical media constitutes sale of goods liable to sales tax and not a taxable service under service tax law.
The State of Kerala v. Sister Amala & Anr.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's quashing of proceedings against nuns accused under Section 228A IPC for disclosing a rape victim's identity, emphasizing discretion in exceptional circumstances.
The State of Kerala v. Sister Amala & Anr.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal against the High Court's quashing of proceedings under Section 228A IPC for disclosure of a sexual offence victim's identity, emphasizing the protection of victims but exercising discretion due to elapsed time and peculiar circumstances.
Reliance Industries Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Supreme Court held that SEBI must disclose all relevant expert opinions and reports to the accused in criminal proceedings to ensure a fair trial, rejecting claims of litigation privilege and ordering disclosure of withheld documents.
XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that police must register FIR upon cognizable offence complaints and Magistrates must direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC when prima facie evidence exists, especially in sexual harassment cases, setting aside the High Court's refusal to do so.
XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that police must register FIRs for cognizable offences and Magistrates have a duty under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct police investigation when prima facie evidence exists, especially in sexual harassment cases requiring sensitive handling and retrieval of material evidence.
Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC due to insufficient corroboration, failure to properly consider defence and alibi, and inadequate examination under Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing the necessity of a fair trial.
JAI PRAKASH TIWARI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC due to lack of independent corroboration, contradictions in prosecution evidence, and failure to properly consider the accused's defence under Section 313 CrPC.
M/s Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. v. Dhiren Kumar
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order allowing a workman's writ petition without merit discussion and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Manjit Singh Sodhi v. The Custodian
The Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings before the Special Court under the 1992 Act, upheld the order directing asset disclosure, and dismissed the appeal challenging limitation and liability.
Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that a trial court's refusal to mark the informant's statement as an exhibit, which forms the basis of the FIR, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision, and the informant has locus standi to challenge such order under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that a trial court’s refusal to mark the informant’s statement as an exhibit, which forms the basis of the FIR, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision and allowed the informant’s criminal revision petition to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sandeep Kaushik
The Supreme Court modified a High Court order directing appointment after a flawed recruitment, awarding compensation instead of actual appointment due to changed circumstances and delay.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sandeep Kaushik
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order directing appointment after a flawed recruitment, awarding monetary compensation instead due to changed circumstances and delay.