Supreme Court of India
8,182 judgments
T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Supreme Court held that SEBI need not disclose its entire investigation report when issuing a show cause notice under PFUTP Regulations but must disclose all material relied upon to ensure natural justice.
T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that SEBI must disclose the investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations to the person issued a show cause notice to ensure fair hearing and transparency, subject to limited exceptions.
Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Regulation 116 empowering deviation from safety qualification requirements and restricted exemption under a Government order to employees in service before 31.10.2013, dismissing the appeals.
Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Regulation 116 permitting deviation from safety qualification requirements for transferred employees under the Electricity Act, restricting exemptions to those employed before 31.10.2013, and dismissed the appeals challenging the Government Order granting such exemptions.
Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd v. B. P. PLC
The Supreme Court held that damages cannot be awarded in lieu of specific performance unless claimed or amended in the plaint, dismissing the appellant's claim despite invalid termination of the collaboration agreement.
Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd v. B. P. PLC
The Supreme Court held that damages cannot be awarded in lieu of specific performance unless claimed or allowed by amendment, dismissed the appellant's claim for damages, upheld the invalidity of the premature termination notice, but refused specific performance due to the contract's nature.
UCO Bank v. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj
The Supreme Court restored the disciplinary penalty against a bank officer, holding that the charge was clear and judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural fairness and absence of patent illegality.
UCO BANK v. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ
The Supreme Court restored disciplinary proceedings and punishment against a bank officer, holding that charges were clear and judicial review is limited to procedural fairness without reappraising merits.
UCO Bank v. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside disciplinary punishment due to vague charges and lack of evidence, emphasizing the necessity of clear charges and limited judicial review in disciplinary matters.
UCO BANK v. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ
The Supreme Court restored disciplinary findings and punishment against a bank officer, holding that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural fairness and that charges must be clear and specific.
क्षेत्रीय प्रबं क, यूको बैंक और अन्य v. कृष्ण कुमार भारद्वाज
The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of a bank officer for gross negligence in cash custody, holding that judicial review of departmental inquiries is limited and the High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary findings.
UCO BANK AND ANOTHER v. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ
The Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary inquiry and punishment against a bank assistant manager for negligence leading to theft, clarifying the limited scope of judicial review over departmental proceedings.
क्षेत्रीय प्रबं क, यूको बैंक और अन्य v. कृष्ण कुमार भारद्वाज
The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of a bank officer for gross negligence in safeguarding cash, holding that judicial review of departmental inquiries is limited to procedural fairness and not merits.
UCO BANK AND ANOTHER v. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ
The Supreme Court restored the disciplinary findings and punishment against a bank assistant manager for negligence leading to theft, holding that the High Court erred in setting aside the inquiry without valid grounds.
Babu Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
The Supreme Court quashed FIRs and criminal proceedings initiated without affidavit support and with mala fide intent, emphasizing the need for Magistrates to apply mind under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
A. Dharmaraj v. Chief Educational Officer
The Supreme Court held that Rule 14 disqualifying simultaneous B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees does not apply to degrees obtained in different academic years or to an M.A. degree, restoring the appellant's promotion as eligible.
A. Dharmaraj v. Chief Educational Officer
The Supreme Court held that Rule 14 barring promotion for simultaneous acquisition of B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees does not apply to the appellant who obtained B.A. and M.A. degrees in different academic years, restoring his promotion.
Satya Dev Bhargava v. Rajasthan State
The Supreme Court upheld Rajasthan's policy granting bonus marks only to contractual employees with in-state NHM/NRHM experience, ruling it constitutionally valid and not arbitrary under Article 14.
Satya Dev Bhagour v. Rajasthan State
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan State's policy limiting bonus marks for NHM/NRHM experience to services rendered within Rajasthan, rejecting claims of arbitrariness and discrimination.
Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan State policy restricting bonus marks for NHM/NRHM experience to candidates who worked within Rajasthan, rejecting claims by candidates with experience from other States as not arbitrary under Article 14.