Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ram Newaj and others

20 May 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 is taken or compensation is tendered, even if compensation is deposited in the Treasury and not the Court.

property appeal_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 land acquisition lapse possession and compensation deposit of compensation

S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam

20 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that the accused is entitled to the preliminary enquiry report prior to framing of charges when the FIR arises from judicial proceedings and the State reverses its earlier closure, ensuring the right to a fair trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant preliminary enquiry report disclosure of documents Section 207 CrPC right to fair trial

Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.

20 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order for a murder accused, emphasizing the necessity of judicial discretion and reasoned orders in bail matters involving serious offences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC Section 302 IPC grant of bail

Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.

20 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order for a murder accused, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion and consideration of all relevant factors before granting bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC murder prima facie evidence

Shri M.L. Patil v. The State of Goa

20 May 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 622

The Supreme Court held that pension arrears must be paid from the correct retirement age despite delay, while denying back wages for wrongful premature retirement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant retirement age superannuation pension arrears revised pension rates

Shri M.L. Patil v. The State of Goa

20 May 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that employees wrongfully retired before the prescribed retirement age are entitled to pension arrears from the correct retirement age, though delay may justify denial of back wages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant superannuation retirement age pension arrears continuous cause of action

Faizabad Vikas Pratishthan v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey; Muradabad Vikas Pratishthan v. Babu; Muradabad Vikas Pratishthan v. Horam Singh; Muradabad Vikas Pratishthan v. Malka Begum

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act was made before 01.01.2014, the 2013 Land Acquisition Act applies mandatorily for compensation, and interim court orders restraining acquisition do not bar this application.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 Section 11 award Section 24 limitation

Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that landowners who obtained interim court stays preventing award declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot claim compensation under the 2013 Act, as such delays exclude them from its benefits.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 Section 24(1)(a) Section 11 award

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. Emta Coal Limited

20 May 2022 · N. V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision restraining recovery based on a disputed CAG report and dismissed the appellant's appeal in a contractual coal procurement dispute.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant writ jurisdiction contractual dispute coal procurement CAG report

State Bank of India & Anr. v. K.S. Vishwanath

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence and interfering with the dismissal of a bank officer proven guilty of fraud in departmental enquiry, restoring the dismissal order.

labor appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry judicial review Articles 226 and 227 reappreciation of evidence

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar

20 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court overruled the broad principle in Y.V. Rangaiah that vacancies arising before amendment must be filled under old rules, holding that recruitment and promotion are governed by the rules in force at the time of consideration, consistent with constitutional provisions on public service.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant recruitment and promotion rules vacancies public service constitutional status

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar

20 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court overruled the principle that vacancies arising before amendment of service rules must be filled under old rules, holding that recruitment and promotion are governed by the rules in force at the time of consideration, consistent with the constitutional status of public service.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant recruitment and promotion rules vacancies prior to amendment public service employment Article 309

Agra Vikas Prati Karan v. Anek Singh & Ors.

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · (2014) 3 SCC 183

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act cannot be invalidated solely for non-payment of compensation if possession was taken and clarified the application of limitation under Section 24(2), overruling earlier precedent relied upon by the High Court.

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

Agra Development Authority v. Anek Singh and others

20 May 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 has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.

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

Agra Vikas Prati Karan v. Anek Singh & Ors.

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act do not lapse merely due to non-payment of compensation for some land portions, setting aside the High Court's invalidation of acquisition on this ground.

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

Agra Development Authority v. Anek Singh and others

20 May 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 has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling earlier precedent relied upon by the High Court.

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

Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Prasad

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 620

The Supreme Court held that on re-employment in government service, retired Armed Forces personnel are entitled to pay fixation with advance increments on the civil post scale capped by last drawn pay, but not pay protection at last drawn pay under Para 8 of the CCS Order, 1986.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant pay fixation re-employed Armed Forces personnel Central Civil Services Order 1986 Para 8 CCS Order

Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Prasad

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that on reappointment in government service, pay fixation for retired Armed Forces personnel must be computed as per Para 8 of the CCS Order, 1986, and does not guarantee pay fixation at par with last drawn pay in the Armed Forces.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant pay fixation re-employed pensioners Central Civil Services Order 1986 Para 8 CCS Order

Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha

20 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellants for culpable homicide under Section 304(II) IPC, affirming that once prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to accused under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain the incident.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 106 Evidence Act burden of proof circumstantial evidence culpable homicide not amounting to murder

M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

20 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable and non-bailable, setting aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 63 Copyright Act cognizable offence non-cognizable offence First Schedule CrPC