Supreme Court of India

8,449 judgments

Year:

Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh

22 Aug 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi · 2022 INSC 850
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that the MACP Scheme applies from 1st September 2008, entitles employees to financial upgradation to the immediate next grade pay only, and grants relief to Central Armed Police Forces personnel unable to fulfill pre-promotional course requirements.

service_law appeal_partly_allowed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme MACP Scheme Assured Career Progression Scheme financial upgradation

Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh

22 Aug 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the MACP Scheme applies from 1st September 2008, entitles employees only to the immediate next grade pay (not next promotional post pay), and grants relaxation of pre-promotional course requirements for Central Armed Police Forces personnel.

service_law appeal_partly_allowed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme MACP Scheme Assured Career Progression Scheme financial upgradation

Union of India & Anr. v. Subhash Chander Sehgal & Ors.

22 Aug 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation paid before the Act's commencement, setting aside the High Court's contrary order.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition lapse possession and compensation Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act

M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. v. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

20 Aug 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory and suits filed without compliance must be rejected.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 12A Commercial Courts Act pre-institution mediation mandatory mediation Order VII Rule 11 CPC

M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan

18 Aug 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; A S Bopanna · 2022 INSC 847

The Supreme Court held that allegations of breach of contract without fraudulent or dishonest intention do not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC Sections 415, 420, and 405, and set aside the High Court's order taking cognizance of such offences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant cheating criminal breach of trust Section 415 IPC Section 420 IPC

M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan

18 Aug 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; A S Bopanna

The Supreme Court held that allegations of breach of contract without fraudulent or dishonest intention do not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order taking cognizance of such offences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant cheating criminal breach of trust Section 415 IPC Section 420 IPC

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh v. M/s. ABC Papers Limited

18 Aug 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that High Court appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order and is not affected by administrative transfers under Section 127.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A Section 127 High Court jurisdiction

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh v. M/s. ABC Papers Limited

18 Aug 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order and is not affected by administrative transfers of cases under Section 127.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A Section 127 Appellate jurisdiction

Ayillyath Yadunath Nambiar v. P. Sreedharan

18 Aug 2022 · Hemant Gupta; Vikram Nath

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to grant specific performance due to doubts about the contract's genuineness and ordered refund of advance with interest.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance agreement to sell refund of advance fraud

Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

18 Aug 2022 · M. R. Shah; P. S. Narasimha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that BCCI qualifies as a "shop" under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 due to its systematic commercial activities, making the ESI Act applicable to it.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 shop definition commercial activity Board of Control for Cricket in India

Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

18 Aug 2022 · M. R. Shah; P. S. Narasimha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that BCCI is a "shop" under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 due to its systematic commercial activities and is liable to pay ESI contributions, dismissing its special leave petitions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 shop definition social welfare legislation liberal interpretation

S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy

18 Aug 2022 · N. V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that successive review petitions without new evidence or error are impermissible, set aside the High Court's order allowing such review, and restored the earlier judgment upholding the surrender of protected tenancy rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant review petition Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC protected tenancy rights surrender proceedings

S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others

18 Aug 2022 · N. V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that successive review petitions without new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record are impermissible, set aside the High Court's order allowing such review, and restored the appellants' protected tenancy rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant review petition Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC error apparent on the face of the record successive review petitions

BRIJ RAJ OBEROI v. THE SECRETARY, TOURISM AND CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT

18 Aug 2022 · Indira Banerjee; C. T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that disputes arising from non-renewal of a lease containing an arbitration clause are arbitrable and directed appointment of an arbitrator, setting aside the High Court's refusal to do so.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration clause lease renewal arbitrability Section 11 Arbitration Act

Nagar Panchayat Moonak v. State of Punjab

17 Aug 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court directed Punjab and Haryana to implement CWPRS's flood mitigation recommendations for the Ghaggar Basin with periodic monitoring to resolve longstanding flooding issues affecting 25 villages.

administrative other Significant Ghaggar Basin flooding Mathematical Model Study Central Water Commission CWPRS Pune

Nagar Panchayat Moonak v. State of Punjab

17 Aug 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court directed Punjab and Haryana to implement flood mitigation measures recommended by CWPRS Pune for the Ghaggar Basin and established a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance.

administrative other Significant Ghaggar Basin flooding Mathematical Model Study Central Water Commission CWPRS Pune

Satyender and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors.

17 Aug 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudhanshu Dhulia
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that second appeals in Haryana are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 without requirement of a substantial question of law, and set aside the High Court's partial decree in favor of plaintiffs for failure to prove ownership and tenancy rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal Section 41 Punjab Courts Act Section 100 CPC substantial question of law

Satyender and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors.

17 Aug 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudhanshu Dhulia
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that second appeals in Haryana are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 without requiring a substantial question of law, and set aside the High Court's decree in favor of plaintiffs for certain plots due to failure of proof, while upholding the rejection of an improper counter claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal Section 41 Punjab Courts Act Section 100 CPC substantial question of law

University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N.

17 Aug 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudhanshu Dhulia
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the 2016 UGC regulations apply retrospectively to validate the appointment of a pre-2009 Ph.D. holder exempted from NET qualification, setting aside the High Court's order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant University Grants Commission regulations NET exemption Ph.D. qualifications retrospective application

B.L.A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

17 Aug 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that a mining lease granted through the statutory procedure by the State Government is not liable to compensatory levy imposed on illegal coal block allocations made via the Screening Committee route.

administrative petition_allowed Significant coal block allocation mining lease Screening Committee Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957