Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India

24 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that children born from a second marriage cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment benefits under the Railway Board policy as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment Railway Board circular second marriage legitimacy

Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. The Regional Provident Fund Organization

23 Feb 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund Act, and upheld the levy of damages for delayed EPF contributions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 Section 14B damages mens rea

Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. The Regional Provident Fund Organization

23 Feb 2022 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund Act, and upheld the levy of damages for delayed EPF contributions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 Section 14B damages mens rea

M/S PURI INVESTMENTS v. M/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO.

23 Feb 2022 · Vineet Saran; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court restored the eviction order against tenants for sub-letting portions of rented premises without landlord's consent, holding that the High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence under its supervisory jurisdiction.

property appeal_allowed Significant sub-letting exclusive possession Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Article 227 Constitution of India

M/S PURI INVESTMENTS v. M/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO.

23 Feb 2022 · Vineet Saran; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court restored an eviction order on ground of sub-letting by tenant to medical practitioners, holding that supervisory court under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate evidence absent perversity.

property appeal_allowed Significant sub-letting exclusive possession Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Article 227 Constitution of India

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

23 Feb 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2022 INSC 224

The Supreme Court held that renting/leasing activities by Agricultural Produce Market Committees are discretionary and taxable services not exempt under the 2006 circular, dismissing their appeals against service tax liability up to 30.06.2012.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant service tax renting of immovable property Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961

Sathish Kumar A v. State of Karnataka

23 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence excluding all other hypotheses, dismissing the appellant's appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder strangulation call records

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

23 Feb 2022 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that renting/leasing activities by Agricultural Produce Market Committees are discretionary and not exempt from service tax prior to 01.07.2012 under the 2006 circular, dismissing their appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant service tax renting of immovable property Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961

Vijay Pratap Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh

23 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi · 2022 INSC 227

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition challenging a selection process and refused to entertain a review petition filed by non-parties, upholding the validity of a fresh selection process initiated by the State.

civil petition_dismissed review petition selection process fresh advertisement refund of fees

Vijay Pratap Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh

23 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by non-parties, upholding prior orders permitting the State Government to initiate a fresh selection process and rejecting challenges to the earlier selection and fee refund claims.

civil petition_dismissed review petition special leave petition selection process fresh advertisement

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II

22 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that expenses incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies to medical practitioners, prohibited under Medical Council Regulations, are not allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 37(1) Income Tax Act Explanation 1 Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002 CBDT circular 2012

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II

22 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that expenses incurred by pharmaceutical companies in providing freebies to medical practitioners are not deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as they are prohibited by law under the Indian Medical Council Regulations and the CBDT circular.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 37(1) Income Tax Act Explanation 1 Indian Medical Council Regulations 2002 CBDT circular 2012

SHRIKANT G. MANTRI v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

22 Feb 2022 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI

The Supreme Court held that a stock-broker availing bank overdraft facilities for expanding his business does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the services were availed for commercial purposes and not exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) commercial purpose self-employment

SHRIKANT G. MANTRI v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

22 Feb 2022 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI

The Supreme Court held that a person availing banking services for commercial purposes in his business does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless such services are availed exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) commercial purpose self-employment

Santosh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

22 Feb 2022 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Pamidighantam Sri Narasi...

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of accused Santosh and Bhola for murder and grievous injury based on credible injured eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, dismissing their appeal against the High Court's reversal of acquittal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant injured eyewitness testimony murder conviction Section 302 IPC Section 324 IPC

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P.

22 Feb 2022 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that a financier in possession of a transport vehicle under hire-purchase or hypothecation agreement is liable to pay motor vehicle tax in advance from the date of possession, irrespective of actual use.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant financier liability motor vehicle tax U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 hire-purchase agreement

SARDAR MEENA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

22 Feb 2022 · SANJAY KISHAN KAUL; M.M. SUNDRESH

The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's power to suspend a Panchayati Raj member pending enquiry under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, directing expeditious conclusion of proceedings and limiting suspension duration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act Section 38 Suspension Sarpanch

Sardar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

22 Feb 2022 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. M. Sundresh

The Supreme Court upheld the suspension of a Panchayat Sarpanch under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act but directed expeditious conclusion of enquiry, emphasizing that suspension is a preventive administrative measure independent of criminal trial outcomes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Section 38 suspension Panchayat Sarpanch suspension criminal proceedings and suspension

Heera Traders v. Kamla Jain

22 Feb 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2022 INSC 219
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld that under Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, tenants must pay rent during eviction appeals, and courts may impose mesne profits as a condition for stay of eviction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Section 13 tenant protection eviction

Heera Traders v. Kamla Jain

22 Feb 2022 · K. M. Joseph; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that under Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, tenants must deposit rent during eviction proceedings and appeals to avail protection against eviction, and courts may impose payment of mesne profits as a condition for stay of eviction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Section 13 tenant protection eviction proceedings