Supreme Court of India

18,244 judgments

Year:

State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya

10 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a State Government notification constituting a Municipal Board without a prior constitutional notification under Article 243Q(2), affirming the State's legislative competence under Part IXA of the Constitution.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Municipal Board Article 243Q Part IXA Constitution Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009

SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

10 Mar 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Vikram Nath · 2022 INSC 287
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2018 circular prohibiting Inter-Commissionerate Transfers under the Recruitment Rules 2016, holding that executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Inter-Commissionerate Transfers Recruitment Rules 2016 Cadre Controlling Authority Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India

10 Mar 2022 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Vikram Nath
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the CBIC circular withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers under Recruitment Rules 2016, holding that statutory rules prevail over executive instructions and no fundamental right to such transfers exists.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Inter-Commissionerate Transfers Recruitment Rules 2016 Cadre Controlling Authority Article 309 of Constitution

Sagar v. State of U.P. and Another

10 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka · 2022 INSC 295

The Supreme Court held that the power to summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, requiring strong evidence, and set aside the High Court's order summoning the appellant, restoring the trial court's rejection of the application.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 CrPC summoning of accused discretionary power strong and cogent evidence

Sagar v. State of U.P. and Another

10 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court held that the power to summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and requires strong evidence, and set aside the High Court's order summoning the appellant, restoring the trial court's rejection.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 CrPC summoning of accused discretionary power strong and cogent evidence

Anar Devi v. Vasudev Mangal

10 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's reduction of mesne profits in a possession dispute, fixing intermediate rates reflecting the property's nature and market potential, and directed expeditious disposal of appeals.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mesne profits possession licensee residential property

Jai Parkash v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

10 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court partially allowed land acquisition appeals by modifying the compensation to Rs.13,54,200 per acre with a 40% deduction on sale deed prices, clarifying principles for valuation deductions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 market value determination sale deeds deduction in valuation

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

10 Mar 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 293

The Supreme Court allowed additional evidence on appeal in a land acquisition case to ensure fair market value compensation, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after proper proof.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence fair market value

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

10 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court allowed additional evidence in a land acquisition appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, remanding the case for fresh determination of fair market value compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence land acquisition fair market value

Hardial Singh v. Balbir Kaur

10 Mar 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court's second appeal jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is limited to errors of law or procedure and remanded the case for reconsideration without disturbing concurrent findings of fact.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal Section 41 Punjab Courts Act, 1918 Section 100 CPC will validity

Hardial Singh v. Balbir Kaur

10 Mar 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of second appeal jurisdiction under the Punjab Courts Act, set aside the High Court's judgment reappreciating evidence, and remanded the title suit for reconsideration within proper legal bounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal Section 41 Punjab Courts Act Section 100 CPC will validity

Pramina Devi v. State of Jharkhand

10 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 292

The Supreme Court held that while proximity of a sale deed to the notification date is relevant, all factors must be considered to determine market value and compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, and remitted the case for fresh determination with clear assessment.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 4 notification market value determination sale deed as sale exemplar

Pramina Devi v. State of Jharkhand

10 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that while temporal proximity of a sale deed is relevant for land valuation under the Land Acquisition Act, all relevant factors must be considered and the compensation must be clearly determined, remitting the case for fresh adjudication.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 4 notification market value determination sale deed as sale exemplar

Sanjeev & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh

09 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's acquittal in an NDPS case, holding that the High Court erred in reversing acquittal without properly considering procedural lapses and the Trial Court's reasons.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 NDPS Acquittal Appeal against acquittal

Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.

09 Mar 2022 · Indira Banerjee; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the Executive Magistrate's order and the High Court's confirmation holding the appellant guilty of breaching a bond for good behaviour under Cr.P.C. after due procedure was followed.

criminal appeal_dismissed bond for good behaviour Section 117 Cr.P.C. Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. breach of bond

Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.

09 Mar 2022 · Indira Banerjee; J.K. Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the Executive Magistrate's order punishing the appellant for breach of bond conditions under Cr.P.C., affirming that lawful procedure was followed and personal liberty was not violated.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bond for good behaviour Section 117 Cr.P.C. Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. breach of bond

State of M.P. v. Ramji Lal Sharma

09 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that common intention binds all accused and benefit of doubt cannot be granted without material contradictions in evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant common intention Section 302 IPC benefit of doubt ocular evidence

State of M.P. v. Ramji Lal Sharma

09 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's conviction of accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, rejecting the High Court's acquittal based on alleged discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence and affirming the principle of common intention.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant common intention Section 302 IPC benefit of doubt ocular evidence

Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Jayakumar & Ors.

09 Mar 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi · ILR 1997 KAR 1025

The Supreme Court held that applicants opting for the 15.10.1988 notification are bound by its terms including site allotment and pricing, and dismissed respondents' claims based on the earlier 10.03.1988 notification.

property appeal_allowed Significant Bangalore Development Authority site allotment notification dated 15.10.1988 notification dated 10.03.1988

Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Jayakumar & Ors.

09 Mar 2022 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court held that allottees who opted for the 15.10.1988 notification are bound by its terms including price alterations under Rule 12, and dismissed their claims based on parity with earlier notification allottees.

property appeal_allowed Significant Bangalore Development Authority site allotment notification dated 15.10.1988 notification dated 10.03.1988