Supreme Court of India
8,182 judgments
Gunasekaran v. The Divisional Engineer
The Supreme Court held that only authorities constituted under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 have jurisdiction to remove encroachments on National Highways, quashing show cause notices issued under the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001.
Gunasekaran v. The Divisional Engineer
Show cause notices issued under the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001, for encroachments on National Highways are unauthorized; only the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, empowers the competent authority to act, and such notices are liable to be quashed.
Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court held that courts can summon persons not originally accused under Section 319 CrPC on prima facie evidence from examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination, ensuring real culprits face trial.
Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that courts can summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on prima facie evidence from examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination, and set aside lower courts' refusal to summon private respondents named in the FIR.
Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order for a habitual offender accused of conspiracy to murder from jail, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion considering the gravity of offence and antecedents.
SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a bank guarantee issued by a scheduled foreign bank operating in India is valid and the High Court erred in directing its substitution with a guarantee from a Scheduled Indian Bank.
SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a bank guarantee issued by a scheduled foreign bank operating in India is valid and set aside the High Court's direction to substitute it with one from a Scheduled Indian Bank.
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B.
The Supreme Court referred for larger bench consideration the question whether a cut-off date can be imposed under Clause 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, holding that the existing two-judge precedent disallows such a cut-off date but recognizing the need for authoritative clarification.
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B.
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question of whether a cut-off date can be imposed under the Employees' Pension Scheme for exercising options, holding that no such cut-off date exists under the scheme and that the amendment imposing it is arbitrary.
Haryana v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court quashed Haryana's 2016 notification identifying 'creamy layer' solely on economic grounds, reaffirming that social and other factors must also be considered in conformity with Indra Sawhney.
Haryana v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court quashed Haryana's 2016 notification on creamy layer exclusion for relying solely on economic criteria, reaffirming that social advancement and other factors must also be considered as per Indra Sawhney.
Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that persons who became residents of Jharkhand by operation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 are entitled to claim reservation benefits in Jharkhand and are not migrants for this purpose, protecting their service conditions and reservation rights.
Madhav v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court set aside the murder convictions due to flawed investigation influenced by political pressure and unreliable prosecution evidence, emphasizing the need for impartial inquiry and credible proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
The Supreme Court held that an employee appointed on leave and continuing service by interim orders is entitled to regularization if appointed to a sanctioned post with over ten years' service, overruling a Division Bench that denied such regularization.
Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that a long-continuing irregular appointment on a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization despite initial temporary status and interim court protection, affirming the finality of earlier judgments recognizing such right.
Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a registered cancellation deed revoking a Will, emphasizing timely objections to mode of proof and the genuineness of thumb impressions, thereby restoring the Trial Court's rejection of probate.
Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a registered cancellation deed revoking a Will, emphasizing timely objection to mode of proof and the reliability of thumb impressions, and restored the Trial Court's rejection of probate.
Multitask Solutions v. Zilla Parishad Washim
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing recovery of payments from the appellant in a public procurement dispute, emphasizing due process and contractual compliance before any recovery or criminal action.
Multitask Solutions v. Zilla Parishad Washim
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing recovery and police complaints against a successful tenderer without proper inquiry, emphasizing due process and contractual compliance.
Abdul Ahad and Ors v. Union of India and Ors
The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions of students admitted through illegal private counselling, affirming that medical admissions must be conducted via centralized counselling as mandated by law, and illegal admissions cannot be protected by courts.