Supreme Court of India

16,357 judgments

Year:

State of Bihar v. Madhu Kant Ranjan

16 Dec 2021 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that a candidate who fails to submit required documents by the cut-off date as per recruitment advertisement is not entitled to additional marks for such documents submitted later, and quashed the High Court's direction for appointment with such marks.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant recruitment advertisement NCC B certificate additional marks cut-off date

Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi

16 Dec 2021 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a 1011-day delay in filing a second appeal, holding that such a huge unexplained delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay limitation second appeal sufficient cause

Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian · 2021 INSC 907

The Supreme Court held that amendments expanding compassionate appointment benefits do not apply retrospectively and entitlement is governed by the rules in force on the date of the government servant's death.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment retrospective amendment Karnataka Civil Services Rules date of death

Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that amendments enlarging benefits under compassionate appointment rules do not apply retrospectively and the scheme in force on the date of death governs eligibility.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment retrospective amendment Karnataka Civil Services Rules date of death

ANITA RANI v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian · 2021 INSC 905
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to prove full and final settlement or authorization of withdrawals, restoring the decrees in favor of the appellant for recovery of money with interest under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant full and final settlement burden of proof Section 70 Indian Contract Act recovery of money

P. SATYANARAYANA v. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian · 2021 INSC 908

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s grant of interim injunction protecting the respondent’s possession of agricultural land, holding that ownership under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act prevails over the petitioner’s claim under a Gift Settlement Deed.

civil petition_dismissed Significant interim injunction possession Section 38-E Tenancy Act Gift Settlement Deed

P. Satyanarayana v. Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's grant of interim injunction to the purchaser of agricultural land holding title under tenancy law, dismissing the petition challenging the validity of the gift deed and prior suit dismissal.

civil petition_dismissed Significant interim injunction possession ownership certificate Section 38-E Tenancy Act

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors.

16 Dec 2021 · N.V. Ramana; A.S. Bopanna; Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is absolute and excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thus delay beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 limitation condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act

IL and FS Engineering and Constructions Company Ltd. v. M/s. Bhargavarama Constructions

16 Dec 2021 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that a first appellate court must decide appeals on merits and cannot set aside a trial court decree solely on impleadment grounds without reasons, remanding the matter for proper adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant impleadment first appeal Section 96 CPC Order XLI Rule 31 CPC

M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED v. M/S BEHARILAL MADANLAL JAIPURIA LTD.

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the respondents failed to prove the alleged fraud and that duly signed invoices and ST-1 Forms constitute sufficient proof of genuine transactions for recovery of dues.

civil appeal_allowed Significant recovery suit sales tax registered dealer fictitious transactions

ANITA RANI v. ASHOK KUMAR

16 Dec 2021 · Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to prove full and final settlement or gratuitous payment, restoring the appellant's decrees for recovery of money with interest and costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant full and final settlement burden of proof gratuitous payment Section 70 Indian Contract Act

Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati

16 Dec 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that reserved category women candidates scoring higher merit are entitled to unreserved category seats under horizontal reservation, overruling the Madhya Pradesh High Court and upholding the revised Select List published by MPPSC.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant horizontal reservation vertical reservation merit-based selection reserved category candidates

IL and FS Engineering and Constructions Company Ltd. v. M/s. Bhargavarama Constructions

16 Dec 2021 · M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that a first appellate court must decide appeals on merits and cannot set aside trial court decrees solely on impleadment grounds without proper adjudication, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant impleadment first appeal Section 96 CPC Order XLI Rule 31 CPC

A.T. Mydeen and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner

15 Dec 2021 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Vikram Nath; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that evidence recorded in one criminal trial cannot be used to convict accused tried separately in another trial, set aside the High Court's common judgment, and remanded the appeals for fresh disposal.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Separate trials Evidence admissibility Fair trial

The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya v. Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors.

15 Dec 2021 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court dismissed contempt petitions alleging breach of its 2015 judgment on Kamakhya Temple management, holding that prima facie misappropriation findings do not warrant contempt without conclusive adjudication.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contempt of court Article 129 Constitution of India Contempt of Courts Act 1971 misappropriation of temple funds

Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

15 Dec 2021 · L. Nageswara Rao; B. R. Gavai; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and death sentences of accused in a multiple murder case due to unreliable ocular evidence, lack of corroboration, and procedural infirmities, emphasizing the need for rigorous scrutiny in capital punishment cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant ocular testimony interested witnesses corroboration recovery of weapons

Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

15 Dec 2021 · L. Nageswara Rao; B. R. Gavai; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court set aside convictions and death sentences in a multiple murder case due to unreliable ocular evidence, dubious recoveries, lack of corroboration, and absence of justification for capital punishment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant ocular testimony interested witnesses corroboration recovery of weapons

The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Meenal Agarwal

15 Dec 2021 · M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna · 2021 INSC 899

The Supreme Court held that a borrower has no absolute right to claim benefit under a One Time Settlement Scheme and courts cannot compel banks to grant such benefit against their commercial judgment and eligibility criteria.

civil appeal_allowed Significant One Time Settlement Scheme Non-Performing Asset Writ of Mandamus Article 226

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

15 Dec 2021 · Indira Banerjee; R. Subhash Reddy · 2021 INSC 898

The Supreme Court held that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council must follow mandatory arbitration procedures under the MSMED Act and Arbitration Act before passing an award, quashing the Council's order passed without arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant MSMED Act Section 18 MSMED Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 conciliation

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

15 Dec 2021 · Indira Banerjee; R. Subhash Reddy
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Supreme Court held that an order passed by the MSME Facilitation Council without initiating arbitration after failed conciliation is not an arbitral award and quashed the order, directing proper arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 conciliation arbitration