Supreme Court of India

16,357 judgments

Year:

Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari

26 Oct 2021 · M.R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court held that post-amendment to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, Magistrates can still take cognizance and commit cases to Special Courts, and procedural irregularities do not vitiate criminal proceedings absent prejudice or failure of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 14 Atrocities Act Cognizance Special Court

P.B. Nayak & Ors. v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors.

26 Oct 2021 · K.M. Joseph; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that a non-residential club is exempt from the Shops & Establishments Act, 1958, and thus employees of such a club are not entitled to protections under Section 58 against termination.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Madhya Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1958 Section 3(j) exemption non-residential club residential club

P.B. Nayak & Ors. v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors.

26 Oct 2021 · K.M. Joseph; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

The Supreme Court held that a non-residential club exempt under Section 3(j) of the Madhya Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1958 is not covered by the Act, and employees of such a club are not entitled to protection against termination under Section 58.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Madhya Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1958 Section 3(j) exemption residential club non-residential club

V. Anantha Raju v. T.M. Narasimhan

26 Oct 2021 · L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjiv Khanna; B. R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that the subsequent written partnership deed supersedes prior agreements, entitling plaintiffs to 50% profit share, and upheld their valid expulsion from the firm.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Partnership Deed Capital Contribution Profit Sharing Sections 91 and 92 Indian Evidence Act

V. Anantha Raju v. T.M. Narasimhan

26 Oct 2021 · L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjiv Khanna; B.R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that the 1995 Partnership Deed superseded the 1992 conditional capital contribution clause, entitling plaintiffs to 50% share in profits till their valid expulsion in 2004, excluding oral evidence to vary the written deed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Partnership Deed Capital Contribution Share in Profits Sections 91 and 92 Evidence Act

Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Limited & Ors.

26 Oct 2021 · M.R. Shah; A.S. Bopanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that denying land allotment to 318 ex-employees similarly situated to 134 ex-employees violates Article 14 and directed allotment of plots free of cost as a welfare measure.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 14 equality before law writ of mandamus voluntary retirement scheme

Caparo Engineering India Ltd. v. Ummed Singh Lodhi

26 Oct 2021 · M. R. Shah; A. S. Bopanna · 2021 INSC 676

The Supreme Court upheld the illegality of transferring workmen without statutory notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing the employer's appeals and directing payment of consequential benefits.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 9A Fourth Schedule transfer of workmen

Caparo Engineering India Ltd. v. Ummed Singh Lodhi

26 Oct 2021 · M. R. Shah; A. S. Bopanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court upheld the illegality of transferring workmen without notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing the employer's appeals and directing payment of consequential benefits.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 9A Fourth Schedule transfer of workmen

Rashmi Rohan Shetty v. Rohan Raghunath Shetty

25 Oct 2021 · B. V. Nagarathna · 2021 INSC 667

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of a divorce petition from Thane to Mangalore for the convenience of the petitioner residing there, with no objection from the respondent.

family appeal_allowed transfer petition divorce petition family court jurisdiction

Rohan Raghunath Shetty v. Rashmi Rohan Shetty

25 Oct 2021 · B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of a divorce petition from Thane to Mangalore to facilitate the petitioner's effective defense and convenience.

family appeal_allowed transfer petition divorce petition family court jurisdiction

Babita Srivastava v. Vinod Srivastava

25 Oct 2021 · B. V. Nagarathna · 2021 INSC 668

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of a divorce petition from Gurugram to Gwalior under Section 25 CPC for the convenience of the petitioner and effective defense.

civil appeal_allowed Section 25 CPC transfer petition divorce petition family court

Babita Srivastava v. Vinod Srivastava

25 Oct 2021 · B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of a divorce petition from Gurugram to Gwalior under Section 25 CPC for the convenience of the petitioner residing in Gwalior.

civil appeal_allowed transfer petition Section 25 CPC divorce petition jurisdiction

N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

25 Oct 2021 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a mother-in-law dependent on the deceased is a legal representative entitled to compensation and disapproved the High Court's application of a split multiplier, restoring the compensation award based on established principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 legal representative loss of dependency split multiplier

N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

25 Oct 2021 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that a mother-in-law living with and dependent on the deceased is a legal representative entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and disapproved the routine application of split multiplier, restoring the compensation award accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 legal representative loss of dependency split multiplier

Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation

22 Oct 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Vikram Nath; BV Nagarathna · 2021 INSC 659
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the water tax levied under Section 52(1)(a) of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act is a valid tax on lands and buildings within the State's legislative competence under Entry 49 of List II, overruling the High Court's order for refund.

tax appeal_allowed Significant water tax sewerage tax UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act Entry 49 List II

Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation

22 Oct 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Vikram Nath; BV Nagarathna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the water tax under Section 52(1)(a) of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act as a tax on lands and buildings within the State's legislative competence under Entry 49 of List II, rejecting the constitutional challenge and setting aside the High Court's refund order.

tax appeal_allowed Significant water tax sewerage tax UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act Entry 49 List II

Harwansh Kaur & Anr v. Special Area Development Authority

22 Oct 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat · 2021 INSC 662

The Supreme Court held that the appellants lawfully own and possess the disputed land and set aside the High Court's order reopening the case on review, affirming that government cannot lease land it does not own.

civil appeal_allowed Significant land ownership possession government land lease

HARWANSH KAUR & ANR v. SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

22 Oct 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that a review petition cannot reopen settled ownership disputes and affirmed the appellants' title and possession over the disputed land, setting aside the High Court's order allowing review.

civil appeal_allowed Significant land ownership possession review petition title transfer

Jayan v. State of Kerala

22 Oct 2021 · Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants convicted under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act due to lack of evidence proving ownership and unreliable identification after long delay without Test Identification Parade.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Kerala Abkari Act Section 55(a) illegal transportation of spirit ownership of vehicle

V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.

22 Oct 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Vikram Nath; BV Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for appeals under the IBC runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, mandating timely filing with a certified copy, and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 limitation period appeal certified copy