Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

NIMS University v. Union of India

09 May 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court upheld the decision to maintain the 50th percentile eligibility cut-off for Super Specialty medical courses, refusing to lower it despite vacant seats, but directed a mop-up counselling round to fill vacancies.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Super Specialty medical courses cut-off percentile NEET Super Specialty counselling academic policy

V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash v. M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons’ Charities

09 May 2022 · Vineet Saran; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, despite holding a US Green Card, qualifies as a founder trustee under the trust’s Scheme of Administration by virtue of his residence and animus to reside within the Madras Presidency, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment and setting aside the High Court’s contrary decision.

civil appeal_allowed Significant founder trustee Scheme of Administration residence requirement Green Card

Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka and Others

09 May 2022 · Vineet Saran; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that candidates with provisional B.Ed. results declared before the cut-off date are eligible for appointment, directed merit-based selection respecting seniority, and clarified compliance with its prior order amid contempt proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant provisional result confidential result eligibility merit

Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka and Others

09 May 2022 · Vineet Saran; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that candidates with provisional university results declared before the cut-off date are eligible for appointment, directed merit-based selection respecting court orders, and clarified compliance and merit principles in recruitment litigation.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant provisional result confidential result eligibility merit

Pooja Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma v. Ashish Vinaybhai Mishra

09 May 2022 · B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 540

The Supreme Court allowed the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, dispensing with the six-month waiting period and rendering transfer petitions infructuous based on a mediated settlement.

family appeal_allowed Significant divorce by mutual consent Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act Article 142 Constitution of India transfer petition

Pooja Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma v. Ashish Vinaybhai Mishra

09 May 2022 · B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court allowed mutual consent divorce by accepting a mediated settlement, dispensing with the six months' waiting period, and disposed of connected transfer petitions as infructuous.

family petition_allowed Significant divorce by mutual consent Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act Article 142 Constitution of India transfer petition

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

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

The Supreme Court revoked NBWL clearance for doubling a railway line through the Western Ghats, emphasizing mandatory environmental clearances, sustainable development, and precautionary principle.

environmental appeal_allowed Significant National Board for Wildlife doubling of railway line Western Ghats Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C. T. Ravikumar · 2022 INSC 535

The Supreme Court held that detention beyond the sentence period fixed by the High Court, including remission, is illegal and awarded compensation to the appellant for violation of fundamental rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant illegal detention remission compensation Article 21

Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; C. T. Ravikumar

The Supreme Court held that detention beyond the lawful sentence period violates fundamental rights and awarded compensation to a convict illegally detained beyond his sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant illegal detention remission compensation Article 21

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held that a partner cannot be criminally convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without the firm being prosecuted and without proof that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business or consented to the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act vicarious liability partnership firm

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda

09 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a partner cannot be criminally convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without the firm being prosecuted as the principal offender and without proof that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act vicarious liability partnership firm

Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

06 May 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court referred the unresolved constitutional question on the legislative competence of Delhi over 'services' under Article 239AA(3)(a) to a Constitution Bench for authoritative interpretation.

constitutional other Significant Article 239AA Legislative competence Union Territory National Capital Territory of Delhi

Sathyanath & Anr. v. Sarojamani

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that res judicata, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, and courts must decide all issues together to ensure expeditious disposal and avoid remand.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XIV Rule 2 CPC preliminary issue res judicata mixed question of law and fact

Samapan Varishth Jan Parishad v. Rajendra Prasad Agrawal

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian · 2022 INSC 528

The Supreme Court held that licensees in an old age home have no proprietary rights and can be evicted upon license termination, setting aside the interim injunction protecting their possession.

civil appeal_allowed Significant licensee rights old age home eviction license vs lease

Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian · 2022 INSC 528

The Supreme Court held that inmates of an old age home are licensees with permissive possession only and cannot claim injunction against eviction for breach of license terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant licensee old age home interim injunction possession

Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that inmates of an old age home are licensees with permissive possession only and cannot claim injunction against eviction for violation of license terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant licensee old age home interim injunction possession

Muzaffar Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

06 May 2022 · Nanjay Y. Chandrachud; Bela M. Vitravedi
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld disciplinary action against a judicial officer for misconduct in awarding excessive compensation, affirming the high standards of integrity required from judges and the propriety of the penalty imposed.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant judicial misconduct disciplinary proceedings judicial integrity pension penalty

Land and Building Department v. Pawan Kumar

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse merely because compensation was deposited in court without prior tender to landowners, and a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse under the 2013 Act, setting aside the High Court's order.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) compensation deposit

Land and Building Department v. Pawan Kumar

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse if compensation has been tendered or deposited in court, and a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act Compensation payment Deposit in court

Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.

06 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken and compensation paid or deposited, and purchasers acquiring land post-vesting cannot claim lapse of acquisition.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) possession