Supreme Court of India

13,887 judgments

Year:
Showing 2020 — 1117 judgments found

Mankastu Impex Private Limited v. Airvisual Limited

05 Mar 2020 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the arbitration seat being Hong Kong excludes Indian courts' jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act to appoint an arbitrator, dismissing the petition and directing the parties to approach the Hong Kong arbitration institution.

arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant seat of arbitration venue of arbitration international commercial arbitration Section 11 Arbitration Act

UCO Bank v. National Textile Corporation Ltd.

05 Mar 2020 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld quashing of arbitration proceedings under PMA but held that liability of National Textile Corporation Ltd. for dues of Shree Sitaram Mills Ltd. must be adjudicated in recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act recovery proceedings Debts Recovery Tribunal

UCO Bank v. National Textile Corporation Ltd.

05 Mar 2020 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld quashing of arbitration proceedings under PMA for lack of jurisdiction but set aside the High Court's conclusion on liability, leaving the question of liability and recovery to be decided in appropriate recovery proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act liability after nationalisation arbitration jurisdiction

Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair

05 Mar 2020 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that under the MACP Scheme, financial upgradation is limited to the next higher grade pay and not the promotional hierarchy, and that dismissal of an SLP on technical grounds does not create binding precedent.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme MACP Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP

M/S SUPER MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

05 Mar 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a single satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer suffices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act when the same officer has jurisdiction over both the searched person and the other person, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note search and seizure Assessing Officer jurisdiction

M/S SUPER MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

05 Mar 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a single satisfaction note by the same Assessing Officer for both searched person and assessee satisfies Section 153C requirements, dismissing the assessee's appeal challenging the validity of the assessment.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note search and seizure Assessing Officer

Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Mar 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that the Detaining Authority under COFEPOSA must independently and expeditiously consider representations against detention orders without deferring to the Central Advisory Board's opinion.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant preventive detention COFEPOSA Act detention order representation

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. NHPC Ltd

04 Mar 2020 · R. F. Nariman; S. Ravindra Bhat; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that where the seat of arbitration is designated, only courts at that seat have jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings, and transferred all related petitions filed elsewhere to the court at the seat.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration seat jurisdiction Section 42 Arbitration Act Section 34 challenge

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. NHPC Ltd

04 Mar 2020 · R. F. Nariman; S. Ravindra Bhat; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that when the seat of arbitration is designated, only the courts at that seat have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings, and applications filed elsewhere must be transferred accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration seat Section 42 Arbitration Act jurisdiction Section 34 challenge

Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Maryadit v. Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit

04 Mar 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that Central Cooperative Banks receiving State Government funds must appoint their CEOs from cadres deputed by the Apex Society under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, harmonizing the 2016 amendment with existing provisions to preserve regulatory control.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Cooperative Societies Act 1960 Section 54(3) Section 49-E(2) Chief Executive Officer appointment

Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank v. Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit

04 Mar 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the Apex Society has authority to appoint the CEO of a Central Cooperative Bank under Section 54(3) read with Section 49-E(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and set aside the High Court Division Bench's contrary ruling.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Cooperative Societies Act 1960 Section 54(3) Section 49-E(2) Chief Executive Officer appointment

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

04 Mar 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee; Vineet Saran; M. R. Shah; S. R... · 2020 INSC 274

The Supreme Court held that the 45-day time limit for filing a response under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory and the limitation period starts from receipt of notice with the complaint copy.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13(2)(a) time limit mandatory vs directory

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

04 Mar 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee; Vineet Saran; M. R. Shah; S. R...

The Supreme Court held that the 45-day time limit for filing a response under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory and the limitation period starts from receipt of notice with the complaint copy.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13(2)(a) time limit mandatory vs directory

C. JAYACHANDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA

04 Mar 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a candidate wrongfully excluded from appointment is entitled to notional seniority from the date of appointment of others in the same selection, affirmed the existence of quotas for direct recruits and promotee officers, and upheld the Administrative Committee's jurisdiction over seniority disputes.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant notional seniority Kerala Higher Judicial Service quota for direct recruits quota for promotee officers

C. JAYACHANDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

04 Mar 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a judicial officer wrongfully excluded from appointment is entitled to notional seniority from the date of appointment of other direct recruits, recognizing quotas for direct recruits and promotee officers and affirming the Administrative Committee's jurisdiction over seniority disputes.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant notional seniority quota for direct recruits quota for promotee officers Kerala Higher Judicial Service

Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board v. Vijay Bodana

04 Mar 2020 · Sharad A. Bobde; S. Abdul Nazeer; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court upheld lawful modification of a layout plan under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, rejecting promissory estoppel and delay-based challenges, and protecting third-party rights in land use disputes.

property appeal_allowed Significant layout plan modification Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 town planning promissory estoppel

Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board v. Vijay Bodana and Others

04 Mar 2020 · Sharad A. Bobde; S. Abdul Nazeer; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court upheld lawful modification of a layout plan under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, rejecting promissory estoppel and delay-based challenges, and validated third-party rights arising from such modification.

property appeal_allowed Significant layout plan modification Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 town planning promissory estoppel

Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha Nirola

04 Mar 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; Navin Sinha · 2020 INSC 270

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the second marriage and nomination-based exclusive entitlement to family pension, dismissing the first wife's claim despite the settlement deed partitioning the estate.

family appeal_dismissed Significant family pension succession certificate nomination Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990

Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha Nirola

04 Mar 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court held that family pension under Sikkim Pension Rules is payable only to the nominated wife, and a settlement deed partitioning properties precludes claims by the first wife not nominated for pension.

family appeal_dismissed Significant family pension succession certificate nomination Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990

Patram v. Gram Panchayat Katwar

04 Mar 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Deepak Gupta

The Supreme Court held that land described as 'shamilat patti' but not used for common village purposes is not 'shamilat deh' land and does not vest in the village common body.

property appeal_allowed Significant shamilat deh patti Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 land classification