Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

JAI BHAVANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL v. RAMESH

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the President's mandatory membership in the Inquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(b) applies only if the Head is also the Chief Executive Officer, and validated the disciplinary removal of the Principal despite the President's absence due to ill health.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Inquiry Committee Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules Disciplinary inquiry Head of Institution

JAI BHAVANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL v. RAMESH

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the President's membership in the Inquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(b) is required only if the Head is also the Chief Executive Officer, and validated the disciplinary removal of the Principal despite the President's replacement due to ill health.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Inquiry Committee Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules Disciplinary proceedings Head of institution

The Municipal Committee, Barwala v. Jai Narayan and Company

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that a highest bidder in a municipal land auction acquires no legal right without confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner and prior State Government approval, setting aside the decree for mandatory injunction and declaring the plaintiff's possession illegal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mandatory injunction public auction confirmation of sale Deputy Commissioner

The Municipal Committee, Barwala v. Jai Narayan and Company

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that a highest bidder in a municipal land auction acquires no right without sale confirmation by competent authority, set aside the decree for mandatory injunction, and declared the plaintiff's possession illegal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mandatory injunction public auction confirmation of sale municipal land

Tarlochan Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab

29 Mar 2022 · N. V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of Arms Act offences and conspiracy charges, holding that mere firearm license ownership does not establish guilt without proof of knowing delivery or willful contravention.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Arms Act Section 29 Arms Act Section 30 Arms Act Section 120-B IPC

Tarlochan Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab

29 Mar 2022 · N. V. Ramana; Krishna Murari; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of Arms Act and conspiracy charges, holding that mere firearm license ownership does not imply liability without proof of knowing delivery or willful violation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Arms Act Section 29 Arms Act Section 30 Arms Act Section 120-B IPC

SVG FASHIONS PVT. LTD. v. RITU MURLI MANOHAR GOYAL

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act can extend limitation for insolvency claims and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Section 18 Limitation Act Acknowledgment of liability Limitation period

C. MANJAMMA & ANR. v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

29 Mar 2022 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Aniruddha Bose · 2022 INSC 365

The Supreme Court restored the compensation awarded to the dependents of a deceased driver, holding that the Commissioner’s findings based on documentary evidence of death due to employment strain cannot be interfered with by the High Court absent perversity or substantial question of law.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Workmen’s Compensation Employees Compensation Act, 1933 death due to employment compensation claim

C. Manjamma & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager

29 Mar 2022 · Dinesh Maheshwari; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court restored the Commissioner’s award of compensation to the dependents of a deceased driver, holding that factual findings based on documentary evidence of employment-related death should not be disturbed by the High Court absent perversity or substantial question of law.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employees Compensation Act, 1933 workmen’s compensation cause of death employment nexus

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. SRI LANKAPPAAND

29 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition for lack of any error apparent on record, reaffirming the limited scope of review jurisdiction in civil appeals.

civil petition_dismissed Review Petition Error apparent on record Civil Appeal Oral hearing

Master Ayush v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a minor paraplegic road accident victim, directing a liberal and comprehensive award covering future earnings, medical expenses, attendant charges, and loss of amenities.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation permanent disability motor accident minor claimant

Bata India Limited v. Workmen of Bata India Limited and Another

29 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held that deliberate "go slow" by workmen justifies pro-rata wage deductions but mandates a fair hearing before such deductions, directing payment of deducted wages and allowing management to take lawful action.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant go slow tactic pro-rata wage deduction intentional refusal to work principles of natural justice

Bata India Limited v. Workmen of Bata India Limited and Another

29 Mar 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held that wage deductions for "go slow" work are permissible only after giving workmen a fair hearing, directing payment of deducted wages and allowing management to take lawful action thereafter.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant go slow tactic pro-rata wages natural justice wage deduction

RAM KRISHNA GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

29 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi · 2022 INSC 366

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, holding no error apparent on record to justify interference.

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

RAM KRISHNA GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

29 Mar 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition against the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, holding no error apparent on record to warrant interference.

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

Mekha Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others

29 Mar 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 360

The Supreme Court upheld the State's right to recover excess amounts paid to employees pursuant to an interim order later set aside, applying the principle of restitution and Section 144 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant principle of restitution Section 144 CPC recovery of excess payment interim order

Mekha Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others

29 Mar 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the State's right to recover excess amounts paid pursuant to an interim order later set aside, applying the principle of restitution under Section 144 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant principle of restitution Section 144 CPC interim order recovery of excess payment

Master Ayush v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

29 Mar 2022 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a minor paraplegic road accident victim, applying liberal principles for permanent disability and directing structured disbursement to the guardian.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation permanent disability minor claimant motor accident

Delhi Development Authority v. Rajan Sood

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

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation tendered, and interim stay periods exclude from lapse computation, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's lapse declaration.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 section 24(2) possession

Delhi Development Authority v. Rajan Sood

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

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation tendered, and excluded stay periods from the lapse computation, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and allowing the appeal of Delhi Development Authority.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 section 24(2) possession