Supreme Court of India

16,356 judgments

Year:

Hyundai Motor India Limited v. Shailendra Bhatnagar

20 Apr 2022 · Vineet Saran; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld consumer liability and punitive damages against Hyundai for defective airbag deployment in a vehicle accident, affirming reliefs granted by consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant airbag deployment consumer protection product defect punitive damages

All India Judges Association v. Union of India

19 Apr 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B.R. Gavai; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court modified the qualifying service requirement for promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Service through LDCE from 5 years as Senior Division to 7 years combined service, recognizing Delhi's unique judicial cadre structure.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Higher Judicial Service Limited Departmental Competitive Examination promotion eligibility Civil Judge Senior Division

All India Judges Association v. Union of India

19 Apr 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B.R. Gavai; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court modified the qualifying service requirement for promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Service under LDCE from 5 years as Senior Division judge to 7 years combined service or 10 years Junior Division service, to address practical difficulties and uphold promotion incentives.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Higher Judicial Service Limited Departmental Competitive Examination promotion eligibility Civil Judge Senior Division

Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal order pronounced without a reasoned judgment and remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the necessity of prompt and reasoned judgments.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant reasoned judgment operative order judicial discipline delay in judgment

Union of India v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

19 Apr 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that interest on delayed IGST refunds under Section 56 of the CGST Act is payable at 6% per annum and set aside the High Court's award of 9% interest.

tax appeal_allowed Significant IGST Act 2017 CGST Act 2017 delayed refund interest on refund

Union of India v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

19 Apr 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that interest on delayed GST refunds is payable at the statutory rate of 6% per annum and set aside the High Court's award of 9% interest, affirming the maintainability of writ petitions enforcing statutory rights to interest.

tax appeal_allowed Significant IGST Act 2017 CGST Act 2017 interest on delayed refund Section 56 CGST Act

Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn.

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 437

The Supreme Court partly enhanced compensation for land acquired by MIDC in village Bhoyar by applying a 12% cumulative increase to a reliable sale exemplar, affirming that future use cannot solely determine compensation and that different lands in the same village may have different values.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 fair market value

Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn.

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court partly enhanced compensation for land acquired by MIDC in village Bhoyar, holding that fair market value must be based on sale exemplars of similar land in the same village with appropriate cumulative increase, rejecting reliance on future use for compensation enhancement.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation fair market value Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961

M/s Tirupati Steels v. M/s Shubh Industrial Component & Anr

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the 75% pre-deposit under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is mandatory before entertaining a challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, overruling the High Court's contrary view.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act 2006 Section 19 MSMED Act Section 34 Arbitration Act pre-deposit

M/s Tirupati Steels v. M/s Shubh Industrial Component

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the pre-deposit of 75% of the arbitral award under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is mandatory before entertaining a challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, overruling the High Court's contrary view.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act 2006 Section 19 MSMED Act Section 34 Arbitration Act pre-deposit

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose

Wages of employees during CIRP are payable as insolvency resolution costs only if the corporate debtor was a going concern and employees actually worked, while provident fund, gratuity, and pension dues are excluded from liquidation estate and must be paid separately.

corporate appeal_partly_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Insolvency Resolution Process Costs Workmen's dues

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose

Wages of employees who actually worked during CIRP when the corporate debtor was a going concern qualify as CIRP costs with priority payment, while provident fund and gratuity dues are excluded from liquidation estate and must be paid separately.

corporate appeal_partly_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Insolvency Resolution Process Costs Going Concern

Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

19 Apr 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court set aside a cryptic High Court bail order in a serious rape case, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion under Section 439 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC reasoned order non-application of mind

Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's appeal challenging a penalty exceeding the tax effect threshold is maintainable despite subsequent reduction, and that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to approve penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c).

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(c) CBDT Circular 2015 penalty

Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's appeal challenging a penalty is maintainable based on the original penalty amount despite subsequent reductions, and that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to approve such penalties.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(c) penalty CBDT Circular 2015

Union of India v. M. Duraisamy

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of a postal employee for serious fraud, holding that courts should not interfere with disciplinary punishment based on sympathy or repayment after misconduct is proved.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry removal from service compulsory retirement fraud

Union of India v. M. Duraisamy

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of a postal employee who committed serious fraud, holding that courts should not reduce punishment based on sympathy when misconduct is proved.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry removal from service compulsory retirement fraud

Nemai Chandra Dey v. Prasanta Chandra

19 Apr 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that the first appellate Court must reappreciate evidence and apply law with reasons, and remanded the case for fresh disposal due to the appellate Court's failure to discharge its duties.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XLI Rule 31 CPC first appellate Court duty second appeal substantial question of law

Jagdish Mavji Tank Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Harresh Navnitrai Mehta & Ors.

19 Apr 2022 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI

The Supreme Court held that the developer with requisite tenant consent is entitled to redevelop the property without MHADA's imposed conditions, rejected MHADA's ownership claim over acquired land, and directed strict compliance with redevelopment timelines.

property other Significant redevelopment tenants consent No Objection Certificate MHADA

V G Jagdishan v. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 434

The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court at the place of employment and termination alone has territorial jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal challenging the jurisdictional objection raised by the respondent.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Labour Court cause of action demand notice