Supreme Court of India
8,182 judgments
N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court refused to extend interim protection on seat reservation for Tamil Nadu medical admissions beyond 2020-2021, directing DGHS to conduct 2021-2022 counselling as per state reservation policy.
N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court refused to extend interim protection on seat reservation for Tamil Nadu medical admissions beyond 2020-2021 and directed DGHS to conduct counselling for 2021-2022 as per the State's reservation policy.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Ravit Singh
The Supreme Court held that while punishment cannot be denied solely on equality grounds, procedural violations in departmental inquiry require remand for fresh inquiry ensuring natural justice.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Equality cannot quash punishment when charges are proved, and departmental enquiry violations require remand for fresh enquiry, not outright quashing.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Rajit Singh
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders that quashed the disciplinary penalty, and remitted the matter for fresh inquiry ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Rasi Singh
The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of disciplinary punishment due to violation of natural justice and procedural irregularities, rejecting mechanical application of parity and remanding for fresh inquiry.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Equality cannot quash punishment when charges are proved against an individual, and remanded the matter for fresh departmental enquiry due to violation of natural justice.
Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that police investigation under Section 23 of POCSO does not require prior Magistrate permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. as Section 19 of POCSO overrides Cr.P.C. provisions, and upheld the cognizance and trial against the appellant.
The State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Antu Patil
The Supreme Court held that Time Bound Promotion benefits apply only from the date of absorption into the relevant post and pay scale, allowing pension revision accordingly but disallowing recovery of amounts already paid.
M/S. N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED v. M/S. VINOD KUMAR JAIN
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing judicial restraint in tender disputes and directing completion of the infrastructure project, holding that courts should not interfere with administrative contract awards absent arbitrariness or mala fides.
Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that police can investigate offences under Section 23 of POCSO without magistrate's prior permission under Section 155 CrPC, as Section 19 of POCSO overrides CrPC provisions relating to investigation.
Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
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 evidence exists, affirming the High Court's decision to summon the appellant despite his absence from the police report.
Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
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.
Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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.
Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India
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.
State of Punjab and Others v. Dev Brat Sharma
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.
State of Punjab and Others v. Dev Brat Sharma
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.
Dr. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu
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.
Dr. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu
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.
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh
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.