Supreme Court of India

13,887 judgments

Year:
Showing 2020 — 1117 judgments found

Gopal Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board

28 May 2020 · Indira Banerjee; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that an employee appointed before attaining 18 years cannot be retired before the actual age of superannuation prescribed under service rules, overruling a Full Bench decision that allowed retirement based on length of service.

labor appeal_allowed Significant superannuation retirement age minor appointment Bihar Service Code

Gopal Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board

28 May 2020 · Indira Banerjee; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that an employee appointed as a minor cannot be retired before attaining the actual age of retirement prescribed by service rules, overruling a Full Bench decision that allowed retirement based on length of service.

labor appeal_allowed Significant age of retirement length of service minor appointment pension rules

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Sri Rabindranath Choubey

27 May 2020 · M. R. Shah; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings initiated during service can continue post-retirement with dismissal penalty and withholding of gratuity permissible under CDA Rules and Payment of Gratuity Act.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings superannuation gratuity withholding gratuity

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Rabindranath Choubey

27 May 2020 · M. R. Shah; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings initiated during service can continue after retirement with dismissal and withholding of gratuity permissible under statutory rules and the Payment of Gratuity Act.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings after retirement withholding gratuity Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 CDA Rules 1978

FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER v. AMAR SINGH

26 May 2020 · N. V. Ramana; Sanjiv Khanna; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that in a two-partner firm, retirement of one partner amounts to dissolution of the partnership, and upheld the dissolution date as 24th August 1988 with accounts to be settled accordingly.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partnership dissolution retirement of partner partnership deed forgery of receipt

Faridabad and Another v. Amar Singh

26 May 2020 · N. V. Ramana; Sanjiv Khanna; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that in a two-partner firm, retirement of one partner amounts to dissolution of the partnership, and upheld the dissolution date as 24th August 1988, dismissing the appeals.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partnership dissolution retirement of partner Indian Partnership Act 1932 Section 37 Partnership Act

Alapati Jyotsna & Others v. Union of India & Others

26 May 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court declined to direct a common counselling for MD/MS/Diploma and DNB courses for the 2020-21 session but encouraged authorities to implement unified counselling from 2021 onwards.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant NEET-PG DNB courses Post Graduate Medical Admission Common Counselling

Ombir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

26 May 2020 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction despite delayed FIR forwarding, holding that credible eyewitness and forensic evidence outweigh procedural delays absent prejudice.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 157 CrPC delay eyewitness testimony murder conviction Section 302 IPC

Ombir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

26 May 2020 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction and life sentence of Ombir Singh, ruling that delay in FIR dispatch without prejudice does not vitiate prosecution and credible eyewitness evidence suffices for conviction.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 157 CrPC delay in FIR eyewitness testimony murder conviction

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD v. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.

22 May 2020 · R. Banumathi; Indu Malhotra; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's setting aside of domestic arbitral awards on grounds of patent illegality and perversity under the amended Arbitration Act, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the refusal of review.

arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34(2A) patent illegality perverse arbitral award

Canara Bank v. M/s. Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

20 May 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court held that a bank exercising its liberty to insure hypothecated assets must ensure full coverage, and failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service attracting liability under the Consumer Protection Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant deficiency in service bank liability insurance coverage hypothecated assets

Canara Bank v. M/s. Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

20 May 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court held that a bank exercising its liberty to insure hypothecated assets must cover all such assets, and failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service liable for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant deficiency in service insurance coverage hypothecated assets bank liability

Area Planning Authority v. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited

19 May 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that the Project Proponents must obtain prior State approval under the Framework Agreement before seeking planning permission, and set aside the High Court's order directing issuance of commencement certificate for a group housing scheme in the infrastructure corridor.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Framework Agreement Integrated Infrastructure Corridor Planning Authority Group Housing Scheme

Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.

19 May 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court quashed multiple FIRs against journalist Arnab Goswami arising from the same cause of action, upheld his freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), allowed investigation in one FIR to proceed, and declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI absent exceptional circumstances.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant multiple FIRs abuse of process freedom of speech and expression Article 19(1)(a)

FCI Labour Federation v. Ravuthar Dawood Naseem

19 May 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari · 2020 INSC 401

The Supreme Court dismissed contempt petitions against FCI, holding that regularisation of workers under the Direct Payment System complies with general directions to departmentalise, and no wilful disobedience was established.

labor petition_dismissed Significant regularisation departmentalisation Direct Payment System Departmental Labour System

FCI Labour Federation v. Ravuthar Dawood Naseem

19 May 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court dismissed contempt petitions against FCI, holding that regularisation of contract workers under the Direct Payment System complied with general directions to departmentalise, absent specific orders mandating the Departmental Labour System, and no wilful disobedience was established.

labor petition_dismissed Significant regularisation departmental labour system direct payment system contract labour

RAMNATH AGRAWAL v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

13 May 2020 · N.V. Ramana; Sanjiv Khanna; Krishna Murari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the 1976 agreement was an executory agreement to lease, not a lease, and rent was payable only from actual possession after completion and approval, dismissing the appellants' claim for arrears and enhanced rent.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant agreement to lease lease agreement possession completion certificate

Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh

13 May 2020 · Navin Sinha; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal permitting secondary evidence of a Will where the original was in possession of revenue officials who failed to produce it after notice, emphasizing the need to establish foundational facts before admitting secondary evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant secondary evidence Indian Evidence Act Section 65 Section 66

Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh

13 May 2020 · Navin Sinha; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal permitting the appellants to lead secondary evidence of a Will when the original was in possession of revenue officials who failed to produce it despite notice under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Secondary evidence Indian Evidence Act Section 65 Section 66

Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

11 May 2020 · N. V. Ramana; R. Subhash Reddy; B. R. Gavai · (2020) SCC Online SC 25

The Supreme Court upheld the necessity of internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir for national security but mandated a Special Committee to ensure proportionality and procedural safeguards balancing fundamental rights and security.

constitutional other Significant internet restrictions national security fundamental rights Anuradha Bhasin