Supreme Court of India
16,356 judgments
Pankaj Prakash v. United India Insurance Company
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition for promotion in 2015-2016 and directed its transfer to the Delhi High Court for joint hearing with the pending 2014 promotion grievance.
Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against appellants for abuse of process due to forum shopping and absence of prima facie criminal offence, distinguishing civil disputes from criminal liability.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession or compensation exists, remanding the case for fresh adjudication on all issues.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act unless both possession and compensation are absent for five years, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on all issues.
The State of Karnataka v. Umesh
The Supreme Court held that acquittal in a criminal trial does not bar disciplinary proceedings, restored the compulsory retirement penalty for bribery imposed on a government servant, and limited judicial review of disciplinary findings.
The State of Karnataka v. Umesh
The Supreme Court held that acquittal in a criminal trial does not bar disciplinary proceedings, restored the compulsory retirement of a government servant found guilty of bribery in departmental enquiry, and set limits on judicial review of such disciplinary actions.
Kirpal Kaur v. Ritesh
The Supreme Court upheld the decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell, rejecting the defendants' belated claim that it was a loan agreement, and directed payment of additional amount to do complete justice.
Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha
The Supreme Court held that a consent award for land acquired later and for a different purpose cannot be mechanically relied upon to determine compensation for earlier land acquisition, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha
The Supreme Court held that a consent award in a subsequent land acquisition cannot be solely relied upon to determine compensation in an earlier acquisition and remanded the matter for fresh determination based on relevant evidence.
Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another
The Supreme Court held that a review order must be speaking and reasoned, specifying the error apparent on the face of the record, and set aside a cryptic review order allowing reconsideration by the High Court.
Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another
The Supreme Court held that a High Court's review order must be speaking and reasoned, specifying the error apparent on the face of the record, and quashed a cryptic review order for non-compliance with this principle.
N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court refused to extend interim protection on seat reservation for Tamil Nadu medical admissions beyond 2020-2021, directing DGHS to conduct 2021-2022 counselling as per state reservation policy.
N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court refused to extend interim protection on seat reservation for Tamil Nadu medical admissions beyond 2020-2021 and directed DGHS to conduct counselling for 2021-2022 as per the State's reservation policy.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Equality cannot quash punishment when charges are proved, and departmental enquiry violations require remand for fresh enquiry, not outright quashing.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Equality cannot quash punishment when charges are proved against an individual, and remanded the matter for fresh departmental enquiry due to violation of natural justice.
Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that police investigation under Section 23 of POCSO does not require prior Magistrate permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. as Section 19 of POCSO overrides Cr.P.C. provisions, and upheld the cognizance and trial against the appellant.
The State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Antu Patil
The Supreme Court held that Time Bound Promotion benefits apply only from the date of absorption into the relevant post and pay scale, allowing pension revision accordingly but disallowing recovery of amounts already paid.
M/S. N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED v. M/S. VINOD KUMAR JAIN
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing judicial restraint in tender disputes and directing completion of the infrastructure project, holding that courts should not interfere with administrative contract awards absent arbitrariness or mala fides.
Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that police can investigate offences under Section 23 of POCSO without magistrate's prior permission under Section 155 CrPC, as Section 19 of POCSO overrides CrPC provisions relating to investigation.
Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC can summon persons not named in the police report or chargesheet if prima facie evidence exists, affirming the High Court's decision to summon the appellant despite his absence from the police report.