Supreme Court of India

16,356 judgments

Year:

Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

16 Mar 2022 · Vineet Saran; Aniruddha Bose

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 materials exist against them, dismissing the appellant's challenge to such summons.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 190 CrPC Cognizance of offence Summoning additional accused Police report

Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

16 Mar 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant; Vikram Nath · 2022 INSC 315
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the Union Government's policy of revising ex-servicemen pensions under OROP every five years, rejecting the petitioners' claim for automatic continuous revision as unconstitutional.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant One Rank One Pension OROP ex-servicemen pension Article 14

Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India

16 Mar 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant; Vikram Nath
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the government's revised OROP policy providing pension revision at periodic intervals, rejecting the petitioners' claim for automatic annual revision as unconstitutional.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant One Rank One Pension OROP ex-servicemen pension Articles 14 and 21

State of Punjab and Others v. Dev Brat Sharma

16 Mar 2022 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Vikram Nath · 2022 INSC 316

The Supreme Court held that in a money suit for damages, ad valorem court fees must be paid on the full amount claimed at the outset, and the High Court erred in allowing payment of nominal court fees initially with later adjustment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant court fees Section 7(i) Court Fees Act Section 7(iv) Court Fees Act money suit

State of Punjab and Others v. Dev Brat Sharma

16 Mar 2022 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Vikram Nath
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Supreme Court held that in a suit for damages under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, ad valorem court fees must be paid on the claimed amount at the outset, and the High Court erred in allowing payment of a nominal fee with an undertaking to pay later.

civil appeal_allowed Significant court fees Section 7 Court Fees Act money suit ad valorem court fees

Dr. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu

16 Mar 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B.R. Gavai · 2022 INSC 317

The Supreme Court held that Tamil Nadu has legislative competence to provide 50% reservation for in-service candidates in Super Specialty medical courses and refused to extend interim protection against such reservation for the 2021-2022 academic year.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant reservation in-service candidates Super Specialty medical courses Government Order No. 462

Dr. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu

16 Mar 2022 · L. Nageswara Rao; B.R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that the State of Tamil Nadu is competent to provide 50% reservation for in-service candidates in Super Specialty medical courses and refused to continue the interim order prohibiting such reservation for the 2021-2022 academic year.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant reservation Super Specialty medical courses in-service candidates legislative competence

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh

15 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka · 2022 INSC 308
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the specific one-year limitation under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 governs dispute references, overruling the Limitation Act, but the Arbitration Tribunal may condone delay, and modified the interest awarded while upholding the award otherwise.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 limitation period Arbitration Tribunal jurisdiction condonation of delay

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh

15 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the specific one-year limitation under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 excludes the Limitation Act's extension provisions, but the Arbitration Tribunal can condone delay, and modified the interest awarded accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 limitation period Arbitration Tribunal condonation of delay

India Power Corporation Ltd. v. Eastern Coalfields Limited

15 Mar 2022 · Vikram Nath; M.M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that the arbitral award was final and dismissed the application seeking appointment of a new arbitrator to examine issues already decided, emphasizing that challenges must be made under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral award finality Section 33 Arbitration Act Section 34 Arbitration Act Appointment of arbitrator

India Power Corporation Ltd. v. Eastern Coalfields Limited

15 Mar 2022 · Vikram Nath; M.M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that the arbitral award was final and dismissed the application seeking appointment of arbitrator and correction under Section 33, emphasizing that isolated paragraphs cannot render a final award interim.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral award Section 33 Arbitration Act Section 34 Arbitration Act Amendment of counterclaim

Local Self Government Department v. K. Chandran

15 Mar 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. M. Sundresh · 2022 INSC 310

The Supreme Court held that Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity can be lawfully withheld pending final adjudication of criminal appeals and departmental proceedings under Kerala Service Rules Rule 3A.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Kerala Service Rules Rule 3A withholding gratuity

B.S. Murthy v. A. Ravinder Singh

15 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court upheld the seniority fixation between direct recruits and promotee Inspectors based on quota and rotation principles under the 1979 Rules and 1986 OM, dismissing promotees' challenge to the seniority list.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant inter se seniority direct recruit inspectors promotee inspectors quota rule

B.S. Murthy v. A. Ravinder Singh

15 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court upheld the prospective application of the 1986 Office Memorandum for fixing inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotee Inspectors under the 1979 Recruitment Rules, affirming quota-based seniority and rejecting retrospective claims by promotees.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant inter se seniority direct recruits promotee inspectors quota rule

Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal

15 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka · 2022 INSC 307
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to lack of proof of prior concert and common intention under Section 34 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of meeting of minds for vicarious liability.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 34 IPC common intention prior concert vicarious liability

Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal

15 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC due to lack of proof of prior concert and common intention.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 34 IPC common intention prior concert vicarious liability

P. CHANDRIKA v. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND CEILING AND URBAN LAND TAX AND ANR.

15 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition challenging possession of excess urban land taken before repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, holding no error apparent on record to warrant interference.

property petition_dismissed Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 Repeal Act possession of excess urban land writ petition

P.S. PATEL v. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

15 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi · 2022 INSC 312

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against the dismissal 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 condonation of delay

P.S. PATEL v. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

15 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against its earlier judgment, holding that no error apparent on record justified interference, while condoning the delay in filing.

civil petition_dismissed Review Petition error apparent on record condonation of delay Special Leave Petition

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SADIQUE

15 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Bela M. Trivedi · (2020) 10 SCC 616
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that only the Court, not the Magistrate, can grant extension of investigation time under Section 43-D(b) of the UAPA, and upheld default bail where no such extension was granted, dismissing the review petition.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant default bail extension of investigation Section 43-D(b) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act