Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti

07 Apr 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that State Universities are not bound by Central Government pay scale revisions for Registrars, affirming reasonable classification and limiting judicial interference in policy decisions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant State Universities Act 1973 Registrar pay scale Article 14 equality reasonable classification

State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti

07 Apr 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the State of Uttarakhand is not bound to grant pay parity to Registrars with Central University counterparts, affirming reasonable classification and limited judicial review over policy decisions on pay scales.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant State Universities Act 1973 pay scale revision Registrar Lecturer

Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor

07 Apr 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court upheld the consumer forum’s order directing refund with interest for delayed possession, holding that unfair one-sided contractual clauses constitute unfair trade practices and that Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act provide concurrent remedies.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Apartment Buyer’s Agreement Unfair trade practice

Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor

07 Apr 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Commission’s order directing the developer to refund the amount paid with 9% interest for delay in possession, holding that unfair one-sided contract terms constitute unfair trade practice and that Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act provide concurrent remedies.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Apartment Buyer’s Agreement unfair trade practice

Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua

07 Apr 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. M. Sundresh
Cites 0 · Cited by 21

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by reappraising evidence and allowed the landlord's appeal restoring the eviction order based on bona fide requirement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) Section 25B(8) bona fide requirement

Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua

07 Apr 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by reappraising evidence and allowed the landlord's eviction petition based on bona fide requirement, setting aside the tenant's leave to defend.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) Section 25B(8) bona fide requirement

State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors.

07 Apr 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld amendments clarifying that lands reserved for common purposes under consolidation laws vest in Gram Panchayats without compensation, balancing proprietors' rights and agrarian reforms under Article 31-A.

property appeal_allowed Significant shamilat deh Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 agrarian reform

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd

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

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's non-speaking dismissal of a tax appeal and remanded the matter for a reasoned decision on whether the questions raised were substantial questions of law.

tax appeal_allowed Significant non-speaking order reasoned order substantial question of law dismissal of appeal

Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti

07 Apr 2022 · K.M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy · 2022 INSC 405
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that departmental dismissal of an employee can proceed despite pending criminal trial if the employee participates in the enquiry, and staying dismissal pending criminal conviction is not justified.

labor appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry criminal trial Prevention of Corruption Act Order 41 Rule 33 CPC

Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti

07 Apr 2022 · K.M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that departmental dismissal proceedings can be finalized despite pending criminal trial if the employee has participated in the enquiry, setting aside the High Court's stay of dismissal order.

labor appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry criminal trial Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Order 41 Rule 33 CPC

Mahima Datla v. Dr. Renuka Datla

06 Apr 2022 · Vineet Saran; J.K. Maheshwari; Arjun Bisht; Pradeep Kumar; A...

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order on family company dispute, upheld the validity of director resignation withdrawal under the Duomatic Principle, restricted High Court's appellate scope, and restored the Company Law Board's dismissal of oppression petition.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Duomatic Principle Companies Act 1956 Companies Act 2013 director resignation withdrawal

Mahima Datla v. Dr. Renuka Datla

06 Apr 2022 · Vineet Saran; J.K. Maheshwari; Arjun Bisht; Pradeep Kumar; A...

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order on family company dispute, upheld the validity of director resignation withdrawal under the Duomatic Principle, restricted High Court's appellate scope, and restored the Company Law Board's dismissal of oppression petition.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Duomatic Principle Company Law Board Companies Act 1956 Companies Act 2013

Sarepalli Sreenivas & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

06 Apr 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court upheld convictions for dowry-related murder based on consistent witness and medical evidence, dismissing the appeal and affirming life sentences for the accused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry harassment strangulation postmortem burn injuries Section 302 IPC

Sarepalli Sreenivas & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

06 Apr 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court upheld convictions for dowry-related harassment and murder by strangulation, dismissing the appeal and affirming life sentences against accused nos.1 to 3.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry harassment strangulation postmortem burn injuries Section 302 IPC

Union of India v. Premlata

06 Apr 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that compensation for acquisition of large agricultural land can be based on sale of small developed plots with appropriate deduction, fixing 40% deduction towards development charges on Rs.6 per square foot compensation.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation development charges large tract of land

Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh

06 Apr 2022 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that the State must compensate landowners for land taken without due process despite delay, directing deemed acquisition and payment of statutory benefits.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Article 300-A due process

GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. PANKAJ RANE

06 Apr 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy · 2022 INSC 399

The Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission cannot fix a separate minimum qualifying mark for the oral interview beyond the statutory Rules and must prepare the select list based on aggregate marks of written examination and interview.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Public Service Commission minimum qualifying marks oral interview Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016

GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. PANKAJ RANE

06 Apr 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission cannot impose a separate minimum qualifying mark for the oral interview beyond what is prescribed in statutory recruitment rules, and must prepare the select list based on aggregate marks of written and oral tests.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Public Service Commission minimum qualifying marks oral interview Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016

Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy

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

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order directing pay stepping up of senior officers to remove anomalies where juniors drawing higher pay under the ACP Scheme, applying Fundamental Rule 22.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Fundamental Rule 22 pay anomaly stepping up of pay

Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy

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

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order directing pay stepping up of seniors to remove anomaly caused by juniors drawing higher pay under the ACP Scheme, applying Fundamental Rule 22.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Fundamental Rule 22 pay anomaly stepping up of pay