Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Suresh Chandra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

13 May 2022 · Abhay S. Oka · 2022 INSC 571

The Supreme Court held that failure of the Advocate-on-Record to verify the identity of a petitioner as required under Supreme Court Rules invalidates the filing of the petition on behalf of that petitioner, but does not nullify lawful custody or orders against them.

criminal other Significant Special Leave Petition Advocate-on-Record Vakalatnama Verification of identity

Suresh Chandra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

13 May 2022 · Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court held that an Advocate-on-Record must verify and certify the execution of vakalatnamas to prevent unauthorized filings, accepted that the applicant did not file the earlier SLP, but upheld his lawful custody and dismissed his application to recall the surrender order.

criminal other Significant Advocate-on-Record vakalatnama unauthorized filing Supreme Court Rules 2013

Dr R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC)

13 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court upheld the NEET-PG 2022 examination schedule, dismissing the petitioners' plea for postponement and registration extension, emphasizing executive policy discretion and the need to maintain medical education continuity and patient care.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant NEET-PG 2022 postponement of examination fundamental rights Articles 14 and 21

Dr R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC)

13 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking postponement of NEET-PG 2022, holding that the scheduling is a policy decision balancing public interest and candidates' rights, not warranting judicial interference.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant NEET-PG 2022 postponement of examination fundamental rights Articles 14 and 21

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

13 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Vikram Nath
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that for premature release under CrPC, the appropriate government is the State where the crime was committed, not where the trial was conducted, and directed consideration of the petitioner's application under the policy applicable at conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant premature release appropriate government Section 432(7) CrPC transfer of trial

Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat

13 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Vikram Nath
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the State where the crime was committed remains the appropriate Government to consider premature release applications, even if the trial was transferred and concluded in another State.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant premature release appropriate Government Section 432(7) CrPC transfer of trial

Surendran v. State of Kerala

13 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; A.S. Bopanna; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC, clarifying that statements of a deceased are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act if the cause of death was in question, regardless of acquittal under related charges.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act dying declaration Section 498A IPC Section 304B IPC

Baiju K G & Ors v. Dr V P Joy

13 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant · 2022 INSC 575

The Supreme Court held that the State's failure to compensate Endosulfan victims and provide medical facilities violates fundamental rights and directed strict compliance with its 2017 order.

constitutional other Significant Endosulfan Compensation Fundamental Rights Article 21

Baiju K G & Ors v. Dr V P Joy

13 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Government's failure to compensate and provide medical treatment to Endosulfan victims violates their fundamental rights under Article 21 and directed strict compliance with its 2017 order.

constitutional other Significant Endosulfan compensation fundamental rights Article 21

Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited

13 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court held that writ petitions under Article 227 are maintainable against National Commission orders passed in appeals under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, affirming the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction while emphasizing its limited scope.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 58(1)(a)(iii)

Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited

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

The Supreme Court held that writ petitions under Article 227 are maintainable before High Courts against National Commission orders passed in appeals under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, affirming the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over such tribunals.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Article 227 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Consumer Protection Act 2019 jurisdiction

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi

13 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that writ petitions against SARFAESI Act orders are not maintainable, quashed the High Court's interim stay that stalled recovery, and condemned abuse of court process to delay bank dues recovery.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act Article 226 writ petition maintainability

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi

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

The Supreme Court held that writ petitions challenging SARFAESI Act and DRT orders are not maintainable, quashed the High Court's interim stay that stalled recovery proceedings, and condemned abuse of process by delaying tactics.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act Debts Recovery Tribunal Article 226

Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain

12 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held the respondents guilty of wilful disobedience of its and the High Court's orders, imposed a conditional sentence of simple imprisonment and fine, allowing time to comply or settle the dispute.

civil sentence_modified contempt of court wilful disobedience Contempt of Courts Act quantum of sentence

PTC India Financial Services Limited v. Venkateswarlu Kari and Another

12 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the Depositories Act and SEBI Regulations do not override the mandatory provisions of the Indian Contract Act relating to pledge, affirming the pawnee's obligation to give notice before sale and the pawnor's right to redeem pledged shares until actual sale.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant pledge Indian Contract Act, 1872 Depositories Act, 1996 SEBI Regulations

PTC India Financial Services Limited v. Venkateswarlu Kari and Another

12 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the Depositories Act and SEBI Regulations override the Indian Contract Act's pledge provisions for dematerialized shares, validating the pawnee's acquisition of beneficial ownership and dismissing the appeal challenging this in insolvency proceedings.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Depositories Act, 1996 Indian Contract Act, 1872 pledge Section 176 Contract Act

Kausalya Bhoi v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

12 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court restored the original compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after setting aside the High Court's unreasoned reduction of the amount.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Compensation High Court Modification of award

Anjana Saraiya v. U.P. State and Others

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

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the cancellation of a housing plot allotment due to bona fide delay in installment payments, subject to payment of compensation and completion of formalities.

property appeal_allowed Significant allotment cancellation housing scheme installment payment financial hardship

Anjana Saraiya v. U.P. State and Others

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

The court allowed the appeal against cancellation of a housing plot allotment due to delayed payments caused by genuine hardship, setting aside the cancellation upon payment of dues and compensation.

property appeal_allowed Significant plot allotment cancellation of allotment delayed payment financial hardship

Anjana Saraiya v. The State of U.P. & Ors.

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

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to set aside the cancellation of a residential plot allotment due to delayed payments, directing payment of compensation to regularize the allotment.

property appeal_allowed Significant allotment cancellation payment of instalments Middle-Income Group Scheme compensation for delayed payment