Supreme Court of India
8,182 judgments
K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy
The Supreme Court directed State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India to dispose of disciplinary complaints against advocates within one year as mandated by the Advocates Act, emphasizing the nobility of the legal profession and condemning delays and procedural lapses.
K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy
The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory one-year timeline for disciplinary complaint disposal under the Advocates Act, directed Bar Councils to expedite proceedings, and dismissed the appeal as the original complaint was disposed of.
Sunny Abraham v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that a charge memorandum issued without prior approval of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is void and cannot be validated by ex-post facto approval, setting aside the High Court's contrary decision.
THR LRS. & ORS. v. CHOKLA @ CHOWKHRAM & ORS.
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that no case of contempt was made out against the respondents under the given circumstances.
THR LRS. & ORS v. CHOKLA @ CHOWKHRAM & ORS
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition for lack of evidence of contempt and emphasized the need for judicial restraint and consideration of overall circumstances.
Parvati Devi v. State of Bihar now State of Jharkhand
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the husband for dowry death under Section 304B IPC based on circumstantial evidence and presumption under Section 113B Indian Evidence Act, but acquitted the mother-in-law for lack of specific evidence.
Parvati Devi v. State of Bihar now State of Jharkhand
The Supreme Court upheld the dowry death conviction of the husband but acquitted the mother-in-law due to lack of specific evidence, affirming the application of Section 304B IPC and presumption under Section 113B Indian Evidence Act based on circumstantial evidence.
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that only the accused who actually uses a deadly weapon during robbery can be convicted under Section 397 IPC, setting aside the appellant's conviction under that section while upholding his conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC.
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that Section 397 IPC applies only to the offender who actually uses a deadly weapon during robbery, setting aside the appellant's conviction under Section 397 IPC but upholding his conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC.
Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board; Radhakrishnan Ayyappan Ezhuva v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
The Supreme Court held that daily rated employees of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board are not entitled to benefits under subsequent Government Resolutions not adopted by the Board, and denied claims based on negative equality under Article 14.
Ngaitlang Dhar v. Panna Pragati Infrastructure Private Limited
The Supreme Court upheld the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a Resolution Plan under the IBC, holding no material irregularity in the process and setting aside the NCLAT's order directing fresh consideration.
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. The Union of India
The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF officer with mental disability must consider disability protections under the RPwD Act, and exemption notifications do not bar reasonable accommodation or non-discrimination obligations.
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. The Union of India
The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF officer with mental disability must consider protections under disability laws and that exemption notifications do not bar such protections unless punitive action is imposed.
BRIJMANI DEVI v. PAPPU KUMAR
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's cryptic bail orders in serious murder and attempt to murder cases, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion in bail grants involving accused with criminal antecedents.
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS
The Supreme Court held that a consumer complaint can be filed in a representative capacity under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act only if there is pleaded sameness of interest among all consumers represented, and allowed the appeal modifying the complaint to be treated as a joint complaint by the actual complainants only.
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS
The Supreme Court held that a consumer complaint under Section 35(1)(c) must demonstrate sameness of interest among all consumers represented, and allowed the complaint only as a joint complaint by the actual complainants, not in a representative capacity for all apartment owners.
Govindan v. State
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304(ii) IPC for death caused in a sudden quarrel arising from a land dispute but reduced the sentence from ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment.
Govindan v. State
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304(ii) IPC for culpable homicide in a land dispute case but reduced the sentence from ten years to two years considering the absence of premeditation and provocation.
Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that a candidate selected in the main list for a higher preference post who fails physical eligibility cannot claim appointment to lower preference posts, upholding the binding effect of candidate declarations and Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015.
PANI RAM v. UNION OF INDIA
The Supreme Court held that a Territorial Army member injured in service is entitled to disability pension under statutory regulations despite internal orders denying it, emphasizing the supremacy of statutory law and constitutional equality.