Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

04 May 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 510

The Supreme Court held that reassessment notices issued under old Income Tax provisions post 1st April 2021 are deemed issued under substituted provisions with procedural safeguards, balancing Revenue and assessee rights and modifying High Court quash orders PAN India.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Finance Act, 2021 Section 147 Section 148

Union of India v. Ashish Agrawal

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

The Supreme Court held that reassessment notices issued under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, must comply with the procedural safeguards introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and quashed non-compliant notices, while exercising its constitutional powers to regulate reassessment proceedings uniformly across India.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148 Reassessment notice Finance Act 2021

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

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

The Supreme Court held that reassessment notices issued under unamended section 148 after 1st April 2021 are invalid but may be deemed issued under section 148A of the substituted Income Tax Act, allowing reassessment proceedings to continue subject to compliance with new procedural safeguards.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Finance Act, 2021

M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar v. M/s. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd.

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

The Supreme Court held that when a statutory remedy of appeal against an arbitral award exists under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside such awards.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral award Writ petition Articles 226 and 227 Arbitration Act, 1940

M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar v. M/s. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd.

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

The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be entertained against an arbitral award when a statutory remedy of appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is available and not availed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral award Writ petition Articles 226 and 227 Arbitration Act, 1940

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham & Ors.

04 May 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the Registering Authority must verify the authority under a Power of Attorney before registering a sale deed, and failure to do so can be challenged by writ petition despite pending civil suits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Registration Act, 1908 Power of Attorney Registering Authority duties Article 226 writ jurisdiction

Indra Deo Tiwari v. State of U.P.

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat · 2022 INSC 511

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition challenging the acquittal, holding no error apparent on record to justify interference.

criminal petition_dismissed Review Petition Special Leave Petition Acquittal Error apparent on record

INDRA DEO TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P.

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition challenging an acquittal, holding no error apparent on record to justify interference.

criminal petition_dismissed Review Petition Special Leave Petition Acquittal Error apparent on record

Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Ravinder Singh for murder due to insufficient and inconsistent circumstantial evidence and inadmissible electronic evidence, upholding the acquittal of co-accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory motive electronic evidence

Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Ravinder Singh for the murder of two children due to inconclusive circumstantial evidence and inadmissible electronic evidence, emphasizing strict compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory motive electronic evidence

Amar Vivek Aggarwal & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors.

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

The Supreme Court clarified that advocates with ten to twenty years of practice shall receive one mark per year for Senior Advocate designation, modifying its earlier fixed mark allocation rule.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Senior Advocate designation mark allocation years of practice secret ballot

Secretary to Govt. of Kerala, Irrigation Department v. James Varghese

04 May 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B.R. Gavai · 2022 INSC 506
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998, holding it within State legislative competence under Entry 13 of List III and validated by Presidential assent under Article 254(2), rejecting challenges of repugnancy and encroachment on judicial power.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Legislative competence Arbitration clauses Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 Article 254(2) Constitution of India

Secretary to Govt. of Kerala, Irrigation Department v. James Varghese

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

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998, holding it within State legislative competence and valid under Article 254(2) despite repugnancy with central arbitration laws.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Legislative competence Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Article 254(2) Constitution of India

Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited & Another v. Reserve Bank of India & Others

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of Special Leave Petitions challenging RBI circulars after financial creditors assigned debts and settled claims, subject to costs, without endorsing conduct during status quo.

civil appeal_allowed Special Leave Petition Reserve Bank of India withdrawal of petition status quo

Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited & Another v. Reserve Bank of India & Others

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of Special Leave Petitions challenging RBI circulars after debt assignments to a single creditor, imposing costs, without endorsing the parties' conduct during the status quo period.

administrative appeal_allowed Special Leave Petition Reserve Bank of India debt assignment Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd.

Vishal Vijay Kalantri v. Shailen Shah & Ors.

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition filed by a Power of Attorney holder against the dismissal of a statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, holding that no sufficient grounds for review were made out.

other petition_dismissed Review Petition Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 62 Power of Attorney

Vishal Vijay Kalantri v. Shailen Shah & Ors.

04 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court dismissed a Review Petition filed by a Power of Attorney holder challenging the dismissal of a statutory appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, reaffirming the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

other petition_dismissed Review Petition Section 62 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Power of Attorney

Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

02 May 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the insurer must prove applicability of the terrorism exclusion clause and set aside the repudiation of the insurance claim, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant insurance policy terrorism exclusion clause burden of proof consumer protection

THOMAS DANIEL v. STATE OF KERALA

02 May 2022 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Vikram Nath
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that increments granted due to a mistake in interpreting service rules cannot be recovered from a retired employee after a long delay, emphasizing equity and hardship considerations.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant excess payment recovery of increments service rules judicial discretion

United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.

02 May 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the global marine insurance policy covered the loss, excluding liability under the domestic fire policy, and dismissed Levi's claim under the domestic policy.

insurance appeal_allowed Significant marine insurance fire insurance double insurance Condition No. 4 SFSP Policy