Supreme Court of India

16,356 judgments

Year:

Pooja Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma v. Ashish Vinaybhai Mishra

09 May 2022 · B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court allowed mutual consent divorce by accepting a mediated settlement, dispensing with the six months' waiting period, and disposed of connected transfer petitions as infructuous.

family petition_allowed Significant divorce by mutual consent Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act Article 142 Constitution of India transfer petition

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

09 May 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B. R. Gavai; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court revoked NBWL clearance for doubling a railway line through the Western Ghats, emphasizing mandatory environmental clearances, sustainable development, and precautionary principle.

environmental appeal_allowed Significant National Board for Wildlife doubling of railway line Western Ghats Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C. T. Ravikumar · 2022 INSC 535

The Supreme Court held that detention beyond the sentence period fixed by the High Court, including remission, is illegal and awarded compensation to the appellant for violation of fundamental rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant illegal detention remission compensation Article 21

Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C. T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that detention beyond the lawful sentence period violates fundamental rights and awarded compensation to a convict illegally detained beyond his sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant illegal detention remission compensation Article 21

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held that a partner cannot be criminally convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without the firm being prosecuted and without proof that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business or consented to the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act vicarious liability partnership firm

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a partner cannot be criminally convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without the firm being prosecuted as the principal offender and without proof that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act vicarious liability partnership firm

Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

06 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court referred the unresolved constitutional question on the legislative competence of Delhi over 'services' under Article 239AA(3)(a) to a Constitution Bench for authoritative interpretation.

constitutional other Significant Article 239AA Legislative competence Union Territory National Capital Territory of Delhi

Sathyanath & Anr. v. Sarojamani

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that res judicata, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, and courts must decide all issues together to ensure expeditious disposal and avoid remand.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XIV Rule 2 CPC preliminary issue res judicata mixed question of law and fact

Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian · 2022 INSC 528

The Supreme Court held that inmates of an old age home are licensees with permissive possession only and cannot claim injunction against eviction for breach of license terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant licensee old age home interim injunction possession

Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that inmates of an old age home are licensees with permissive possession only and cannot claim injunction against eviction for violation of license terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant licensee old age home interim injunction possession

Land and Building Department v. Pawan Kumar

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse merely because compensation was deposited in court without prior tender to landowners, and a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse under the 2013 Act, setting aside the High Court's order.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) compensation deposit

Land and Building Department v. Pawan Kumar

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse if compensation has been tendered or deposited in court, and a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act Compensation payment Deposit in court

Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken and compensation paid or deposited, and purchasers acquiring land post-vesting cannot claim lapse of acquisition.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) possession

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. M/s NEW INDIA DETERGENTS LTD.

06 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi... · 2022 INSC 525

The Supreme Court dismissed the insurance company's statutory appeal, holding that the exclusion clause did not exempt it from paying storage charges awarded by the consumer commission.

consumer appeal_dismissed insurance policy exclusion clause storage charges consumer dispute

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. M/s NEW INDIA DETERGENTS LTD.

06 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal, holding that the exclusion clause did not exempt it from paying storage charges awarded by the consumer forum.

consumer appeal_dismissed insurance policy exclusion clause storage charges consumer dispute

Bhag Singh v. Union of India

05 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court upheld compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre for land acquired in Village Sohana under the 1990 notification, rejecting higher compensation claims based on non-adjoining villages and subsequent acquisitions.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation determination market value land acquisition

Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors

05 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that termination of an arbitrator's mandate on grounds of undue delay must be decided by the court under section 14(2) and that an application under section 11(6) is not maintainable absent a written arbitration agreement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 14(1)(a) Termination of arbitrator mandate

Union of India v. Navneet Kumar

05 May 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B. R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that the ACC lawfully denied extension of a Judicial Member's term in accordance with the Selection Committee's binding recommendation to carry forward vacancies, setting aside the High Court's contrary order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Central Administrative Tribunal Judicial Member extension of term Appointments Committee of the Cabinet

Reddy Veerana v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

05 May 2022 · Vineet Saran; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to pay compensation at the commercial circle rate without deduction for development charges, imposed penal interest for delay, and dismissed NOIDA's appeal, affirming the landowner's right to just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation determination circle rate development charges deduction

Reddy Veerana v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

05 May 2022 · Vineet Saran; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's right to compensation at the circle rate without development charge deductions, imposed statutory and penal interest, and dismissed NOIDA's appeal, emphasizing just compensation and protection of property rights under Article 300A.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation circle rate development charges