Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn.

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court partly enhanced compensation for land acquired by MIDC in village Bhoyar, holding that fair market value must be based on sale exemplars of similar land in the same village with appropriate cumulative increase, rejecting reliance on future use for compensation enhancement.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation fair market value Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961

M/s Tirupati Steels v. M/s Shubh Industrial Component & Anr

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the 75% pre-deposit under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is mandatory before entertaining a challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, overruling the High Court's contrary view.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act 2006 Section 19 MSMED Act Section 34 Arbitration Act pre-deposit

M/s Tirupati Steels v. M/s Shubh Industrial Component

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the pre-deposit of 75% of the arbitral award under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is mandatory before entertaining a challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, overruling the High Court's contrary view.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act 2006 Section 19 MSMED Act Section 34 Arbitration Act pre-deposit

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose

Wages of employees during CIRP are payable as insolvency resolution costs only if the corporate debtor was a going concern and employees actually worked, while provident fund, gratuity, and pension dues are excluded from liquidation estate and must be paid separately.

corporate appeal_partly_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Insolvency Resolution Process Costs Workmen's dues

Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose

Wages of employees who actually worked during CIRP when the corporate debtor was a going concern qualify as CIRP costs with priority payment, while provident fund and gratuity dues are excluded from liquidation estate and must be paid separately.

corporate appeal_partly_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Insolvency Resolution Process Costs Going Concern

Sushri v. Rajasthan State

19 Apr 2022 · N. V. Ramanna; Krishna Murari · 2022 INSC 431

The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's bail order for a habitual offender accused of serious sexual offences, emphasizing strict judicial scrutiny and proper application of discretion under Section 439 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC habitual offender serious offences

Y v. Rajasthan State & Ors.

19 Apr 2022 · N. V. Ramana; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court bail order granted mechanically without reasons in a serious sexual offence case involving a habitual offender, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion under Section 439 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC judicial discretion reasoned order

Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

19 Apr 2022 · N.V. Ramana; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court set aside a cryptic High Court bail order in a serious rape case, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion under Section 439 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC reasoned order non-application of mind

Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's appeal challenging a penalty exceeding the tax effect threshold is maintainable despite subsequent reduction, and that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to approve penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c).

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(c) CBDT Circular 2015 penalty

Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's appeal challenging a penalty is maintainable based on the original penalty amount despite subsequent reductions, and that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to approve such penalties.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(c) penalty CBDT Circular 2015

Union of India v. M. Duraisamy

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of a postal employee for serious fraud, holding that courts should not interfere with disciplinary punishment based on sympathy or repayment after misconduct is proved.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry removal from service compulsory retirement fraud

Union of India v. M. Duraisamy

19 Apr 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of a postal employee who committed serious fraud, holding that courts should not reduce punishment based on sympathy when misconduct is proved.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry removal from service compulsory retirement fraud

Nemai Chandra Dey v. Prasanta Chandra

19 Apr 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that the first appellate Court must reappreciate evidence and apply law with reasons, and remanded the case for fresh disposal due to the appellate Court's failure to discharge its duties.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XLI Rule 31 CPC first appellate Court duty second appeal substantial question of law

Jagdish Mavji Tank Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Harresh Navnitrai Mehta & Ors.

19 Apr 2022 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI

The Supreme Court held that the developer with requisite tenant consent is entitled to redevelop the property without MHADA's imposed conditions, rejected MHADA's ownership claim over acquired land, and directed strict compliance with redevelopment timelines.

property other Significant redevelopment tenants consent No Objection Certificate MHADA

V G Jagdishan v. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 434

The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court at the place of employment and termination alone has territorial jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal challenging the jurisdictional objection raised by the respondent.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Labour Court cause of action demand notice

V G Jagdishan v. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that only the Labour Court at the place of employment and termination has territorial jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal challenging the jurisdictional objection raised by the employer.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Labour Court cause of action demand notice

Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd.

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court modified an interim arbitral order directing deposit of rent during Covid-19 lockdown, holding that force majeure claims must be considered before ordering full payment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim measures force majeure

State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's summary disposal of a writ petition challenging a public service tribunal order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with reasoned findings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant writ petition reasoned order Articles 226 and 227 judicial review

State of Uttarakhand & Anr v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma

19 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order for disposing of a writ petition without merits and remanded the case for fresh consideration with reasoned findings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant writ petition reasoned order Articles 226 and 227 judicial review

K.C. LAXMANA v. K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA

19 Apr 2022 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Supreme Court upheld that a gift of joint family ancestral property by the Karta to a non-coparcener without consent and not for a pious purpose is voidable, and the suit challenging it was within the twelve-year limitation period under Article 109 of the Limitation Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant joint family property Mitakshara law alienation gift deed