Supreme Court of India
8,182 judgments
K.V. ANIL MITHRA & ANR. v. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ANR.
The Supreme Court held that termination of daily wage workers without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is void, entitling them to compensation despite irregular appointments.
K.V. ANIL MITHRA & ANR. v. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ANR.
The Supreme Court held that termination of daily wage employees with continuous service without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is void, irrespective of irregular appointment, and awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Jatikandran v. Insurance Company Limited
The Supreme Court upheld the enhanced compensation of Rs. 27,67,800/- awarded for 69% permanent disability in a motor accident case, affirming principles for calculating loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses.
Jithendran v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim with 69% permanent disability by assessing 100% loss of earning capacity and awarding attendant and future medical expenses to ensure just and realistic recompense.
Vs.
The Supreme Court upheld enhanced compensation for a claimant with 69% permanent disability in a motor accident, affirming principles for just assessment of loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses.
Jithendran v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a severely disabled motor accident victim by recognizing 100% loss of earning capacity, attendant expenses, and increased future medical costs, emphasizing just and equitable awards under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific rules, seniority across independently held selections in different Commands must be determined by date of appointment rather than panel order of merit, while upholding certain incumbents' seniority granted earlier in exercise of its constitutional powers.
Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that in absence of specific rules, seniority among MES officers appointed from separate Command-wise panels must be determined by date of appointment rather than panel placement, while protecting settled promotions despite irregular delayed appointments.
Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants, holding that the dispute was essentially civil without prima facie criminal ingredients, and criminal prosecution was an abuse of process.
Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants, holding that the dispute was essentially civil without prima facie criminal offence under Sections 406, 419, and 420 IPC.
Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh
The Supreme Court restored the decree for specific performance, holding that readiness and willingness must be pleaded in substance and that discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act must be exercised judiciously, not to penalize a plaintiff who proved the contract and part payment.
Sughar Singh v. Harir Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that non-registration of a sale deed within the prescribed period under the Stamp Act does not automatically bar specific performance if the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness, restoring the trial and appellate courts' decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh
The Supreme Court held that pleadings on readiness and willingness for specific performance must be read in substance, concurrent factual findings should not be disturbed without perversity, and discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act must be exercised judiciously, thereby restoring the decree for specific performance.
Dr. U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association
The Supreme Court held that civil contempt requires proof of willful disobedience with knowledge, set aside the High Court's contempt finding against appellants for exceeding jurisdiction and deciding disputed facts, and allowed the appeal.
DR. U.N. BORA v. ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court contempt order, holding that civil contempt requires proof of deliberate willful disobedience and that disputed factual issues must be resolved through designated forums, not contempt proceedings.
Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari
The Supreme Court held that Magistrate's cognizance and commitment to Special Court under the Atrocities Act post-2016 amendment is valid and quashing entire proceedings for procedural irregularities is impermissible.
Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari
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.
P.B. Nayak & Ors. v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors.
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.
P.B. Nayak & Ors. v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors.
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.
V. Anantha Raju v. T.M. Narasimhan
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.