Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Rekha Jain v. The State of Karnataka

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

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Rekha Jain under Section 420 IPC due to absence of any allegation of dishonest inducement by her, emphasizing that mere possession of property obtained by cheating does not constitute the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC cheating dishonest inducement possession of property

Rekha Jain v. The State of Karnataka

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

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Rekha Jain under Section 420 IPC due to absence of any allegation of dishonest inducement by her, affirming that mere possession of property obtained by cheating does not constitute offence under Section 420 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC Section 482 CrPC dishonest inducement quashing of FIR

Reshma Sultana v. The State of Karnataka

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

The Supreme Court upheld quashing of a fraudulent appointment but set aside the direction to appoint a non-recommended candidate, ordering a fresh selection process.

civil appeal_allowed Significant appointment fraudulent selection quashing of appointment fresh selection process

Veena Singh v. The District Registrar/Additional Collector

10 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; A S Bopanna; Bela M Trivedi

The Supreme Court held that denial of execution bars appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, requiring an enquiry under Sections 73 and 74, and that disputed fraud allegations in registration must be adjudicated by civil courts, dismissing the writ petition challenging registration of a sale deed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Registration Act, 1908 Section 72 appeal Section 73 application Section 74 enquiry

University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran

10 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court held that employees who failed to opt by the cutoff date are deemed to have switched to the Pension Scheme, unauthorized extensions are invalid, but denying further options to switch to pension to certain employees was arbitrary and discriminatory.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Contributory Provident Fund General Provident Fund Pension Scheme Option to switch

RAM CHANDRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

10 May 2022 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI · 2022 INSC 542

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's university appointment was valid despite alleged procedural irregularities, set aside his termination, and granted terminal benefits without back wages.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 Section 31(4) Section 68 University appointment

RAM CHANDRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

10 May 2022 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI

The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s appointment as Reader was lawful as the Selection Committee was properly constituted with Chancellor’s nominees, quashed his termination, and directed payment of terminal benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 Section 31(4) Section 68 Selection Committee

Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

10 May 2022 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Abhay S. Oka; C.T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court directed immediate notification of local body elections in Madhya Pradesh without awaiting completion of reservation or delimitation formalities, upholding the constitutional mandate for timely elections under Articles 243-E and 243-U.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant local self-government State Election Commission triple test OBC reservation

Savitaambadas Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra

10 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi... · 2022 INSC 551

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition for lack of any error apparent on record, thereby upholding its earlier order rejecting the Special Leave Petition.

civil petition_dismissed Review Petition Special Leave Petition error apparent on record inherent jurisdiction

Savitaambadas Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against the rejection of a Special Leave Petition, holding that no error apparent on record justified interference.

civil petition_dismissed Review Petition Special Leave Petition error apparent on record oral hearing

NEDUMPILLI FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA

10 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that NBFCs registered under the RBI Act are exclusively regulated by Chapter III-B and are not subject to State money lenders legislation, which is repugnant and inoperative to that extent.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Non-Banking Financial Companies Reserve Bank of India Act Kerala Money Lenders Act Gujarat Money Lenders Act

Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka · 2022 INSC 532

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of land acquisition notifications under the 1894 Act, affirmed compensation as per the 2013 Act, quashed illegal invocation of urgency clause, and dismissed appeals challenging the acquisition process.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Urgency clause Section 17 Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 Compensation determination

Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka · 2022 INSC 532

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash land acquisition despite illegal invocation of the urgency clause, directing enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act for non-consenting landowners while denying relief to those who accepted prior compensation agreements.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Urgency clause Section 17 Article 226 writ jurisdiction Compensation under 2013 Act

Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of land acquisition despite delay in invoking urgency provisions, directing compensation as per the 2013 Act and dismissing appeals and contempt petition.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Land Acquisition Act 2013 Urgency provisions Section 17 Compensation calculation

Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's equitable decision to maintain land acquisition despite illegal invocation of the urgency clause, directing enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act to landowners who did not accept earlier compensation.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 urgency clause Section 17 Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013

M/s Haryana Mining Company v. State of Haryana & Ors.

09 May 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B. R. Gavai · 2022 INSC 541

The Supreme Court set aside the termination of a mining lease due to lack of evidence implicating the lessee in illegal mining and non-consideration of exonerating reports, holding the termination order arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant mining lease illegal mining termination order judicial review

M/s Haryana Mining Company v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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

The Supreme Court set aside the termination of a mining lease due to lack of evidence implicating the lessee in illegal mining, emphasizing the need for cogent proof before such adverse administrative action.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant mining lease termination illegal mining judicial review quasi-judicial orders

MIHAN INDIA LTD. v. GMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS.

09 May 2022 · VINEET SARAN; J.K. MAHESHWARI · 2022 INSC 534

The Supreme Court held that a duly issued and accepted Letter of Award under a public bidding process constitutes a binding contract, and annulment of the bidding process thereafter without just cause is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Letter of Award Public Private Partnership Bidding Process Annulment of Tender

MIHAN INDIA LTD. v. GMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS.

09 May 2022 · VINEET SARAN; J.K. MAHESHWARI
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that a duly issued and acknowledged Letter of Award under a public bidding process constitutes a binding contract, and annulment of the bidding process thereafter without valid reasons is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Letter of Award bidding process annulment public-private partnership Article 14

NIMS University v. Union of India

09 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant · 2022 INSC 537

The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's decision to maintain the 50 percentile cut-off for Super Specialty medical admissions, refusing to lower it but directing a mop-up counselling round to fill vacant seats.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant NEET Super Specialty cut-off percentile medical admissions academic policy