Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Shirdi Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi v. Appasaheb Narayan Chaudhari & Others

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

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition private negotiations compensation Land Acquisition Act 1894

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI v. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

05 Aug 2022 · ABHAY S. OKA; J.B. PARDIWALA

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.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant service tax pre-packaged software canned software deemed sale

The State of Kerala v. Sister Amala & Anr.

05 Aug 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C.T. Ravikumar

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 228A IPC victim identity disclosure sexual offence victim protection quashing of criminal proceedings

The State of Kerala v. Sister Amala & Anr.

05 Aug 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C.T. Ravikumar

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 228A IPC Disclosure of victim identity Sexual offence victim protection Quashment of proceedings

Reliance Industries Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India

05 Aug 2022 · N.V. Ramana; J.K. Maheshwari; Hima Kohli

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant SEBI document disclosure litigation privilege natural justice

XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh

05 Aug 2022 · Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; J B Pardiwala
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) CrPC FIR registration Police investigation Sexual harassment

XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh

05 Aug 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; J B Pardiwala
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) CrPC FIR registration cognizable offence sexual harassment

Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 307 IPC Section 313 CrPC interested witness alibi defence

JAI PRAKASH TIWARI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

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

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 307 IPC Arms Act Section 313 CrPC interested witness

M/s Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. v. Dhiren Kumar

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

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.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(C)(2) Section 17-B Article 227

Manjit Singh Sodhi v. The Custodian

04 Aug 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; J B Pardiwala

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.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Special Court Act 1992 Limitation Act 1963 Acknowledgment of liability Execution application

Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka

04 Aug 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; J. B. Pardiwala · 2022 INSC 794

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant revisional jurisdiction interlocutory order locus standi statement under Section 161 CrPC

Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka

04 Aug 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; J B Pardiwala
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant revisional jurisdiction interlocutory order locus standi statement under Section 161 CrPC

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sandeep Kaushik

03 Aug 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant recruitment process appointment compensation in lieu of appointment changed circumstances

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sandeep Kaushik

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

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant recruitment process viva voce marks appointment changed circumstances

Sultan v. State of U.P.

03 Aug 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants due to doubts over the reliability of the dying declaration and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, emphasizing careful scrutiny of dying declarations before conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC benefit of doubt

Sultan v. The State of U.P.

03 Aug 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court set aside the murder conviction based on an unreliable dying declaration and procedural lapses, granting benefit of doubt to the appellants.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC benefit of doubt

Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

The Supreme Court held that service tax was not leviable on composite works contracts prior to the 2007 amendment to the Finance Act, reaffirming the Larsen and Toubro Limited precedent and rejecting the Revenue's plea for reconsideration.

tax appeal_allowed Significant service tax works contract Finance Act 1994 Finance Act 2007

Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

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

The Supreme Court held that the Governor's notification providing 100% reservation for local residents in Scheduled Areas violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and upheld the High Court's quashing of such reservation and related appointments.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Fifth Schedule Scheduled Areas Reservation Article 16

Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

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

The Supreme Court held that 100% reservation for local residents in Scheduled Districts under the Fifth Schedule violates Articles 14 and 16, declaring the notifications unconstitutional but allowed protection of appointments already made to prevent public interest disruption.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Fifth Schedule Scheduled Areas Reservation Article 16