Supreme Court of India
13,887 judgments
CLP INDIA PVT. LTD. v. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.
The Supreme Court upheld that statutory tariff amendments removing deemed generation incentives apply to CLP's plant, limiting recovery of excess payments to three years and denying interest claims for periods prior to contractual recognition.
Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition against the respondent for alleged non-compliance with its order, holding that no wilful disobedience was established and directing the parties to resolve outstanding claims through execution proceedings.
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited
The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to co-operative banks, affirming Parliament's competence under Entry 45 of List I to legislate on banking activities including co-operative banks.
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited
The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to co-operative banks, holding that Parliament has legislative competence under Entry 45 of List I to regulate banking activities of co-operative banks, including recovery of dues.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/S. Uni Products India Ltd
The Supreme Court held that car mattings are textile floor coverings classifiable under Chapter 57 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and not parts and accessories of motor vehicles under Chapter 87, dismissing the revenue's appeals for differential excise duty.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/S. Uni Products India Ltd
The Supreme Court upheld the classification of car mattings under Chapter 57 as textile floor coverings, rejecting their classification as motor vehicle parts under Chapter 87, thereby affirming the lower tribunal's decision and setting aside the revenue's demand for differential excise duty.
Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of NEET as a uniform entrance examination, ruling that reasonable regulations for admissions do not violate minority institutions' fundamental rights under Article 30.
Neelam Gupta v. Mahipal Sharan Gupta and Another
The Supreme Court clarified that a property owned by the first wife is not a shared household under the DV Act for the second wife and directed a settlement involving permanent alimony and divorce by mutual consent with detailed procedural directions.
Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of NEET as a uniform entrance examination, balancing minority rights under Article 30 with the State's regulatory power to ensure merit and transparency in medical admissions.
QUIPPO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIMITED v. JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LIMITED
The Supreme Court held that a party who fails to timely object to the venue or jurisdiction of arbitration waives such objections, validating an ex-parte award passed in a venue different from that specified in one agreement.
BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED v. PRADEEP MEHRA
The Supreme Court held that employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot claim gratuity beyond the statutory ceiling under Section 4(3) based on the employer’s gratuity scheme that mandates calculation as per the Act.
BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED v. PRADEEP MEHRA
The Supreme Court held that employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are entitled to gratuity only up to the statutory ceiling under Section 4(3), and a company scheme mandating calculation as per the Act does not confer entitlement beyond that ceiling.
Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) & Anr.
The Supreme Court clarified the interplay of Sections 143(1), 143(1D), 143(2), and 241A of the Income Tax Act, upholding the Assessing Officer's discretion to withhold refunds post scrutiny notice issuance, subject to limitation and valid reasons, while invalidating withholding prior to return processing.
Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 26 (2) & Anr.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of withholding income tax refund processing under Sections 143(1D) and 241A when a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is issued, emphasizing the need for reasoned orders and proper exercise of discretion.
PILCOM v. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII
The Supreme Court held that payments made to non-resident sports associations in relation to matches played in India attract tax deduction at source under Sections 115BBA and 194E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dismissed PILCOM's appeal.
State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that proper factual inquiry is essential to classify land as plantation exempt from ceiling restrictions under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and remanded the matter for fresh proceedings due to inadequate scrutiny by lower authorities.
State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that plantation land is exempt from land ceiling restrictions under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, but proper factual determination is required to classify forest land as plantation land, and declarations by individual partners are valid if held in personal capacity.
Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld that electricity supply cannot be disconnected without considering installment requests and that consumers are not liable for minimum charges during illegal disconnection periods, affirming the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum.
Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld that electricity supply cannot be disconnected without considering installment requests and disallowed charging minimum guarantee fees during illegal disconnection periods, affirming consumer forum jurisdiction under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Vijay Kurle v. Nilesh Ojha; Rashid Khan Pathan
The Supreme Court affirmed its inherent constitutional power under Article 129 to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings without requiring consent of the Attorney General, holding that procedural rules must ensure fairness but do not limit its jurisdiction.