Supreme Court of India

16,357 judgments

Year:

Chairman Administrative Committee U.P. Milk Union & Dairy Federation Centralized Services v. Jagpal Singh

23 Mar 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that the Chairman of the Administrative Committee is the competent disciplinary authority under the 1984 Dairy Service Rules and can validly impose punishment without prior approval under the 1975 Service Regulations, setting aside the High Court's quashing of the punishment order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 Service Regulations 1975 Dairy Service Rules 1984 Disciplinary authority

Chairman Administrative Committee U.P. Milk Union & Dairy Federation Centralized Services v. Jagpal Singh

23 Mar 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary punishment passed by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee under the 1984 Dairy Service Rules, ruling that prior approval under the 1975 Service Regulations was not required for employees of Centralised Services.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 Service Regulations 1975 Dairy Service Rules 1984 Disciplinary authority

M P Power Trading Co Ltd v. Narmada Equipments Pvt Ltd

23 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the State Electricity Commission to adjudicate disputes between licensees and generating companies, thereby excluding court jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint arbitrators in such disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 86(1)(f) Electricity Act 2003 Section 11(6) Arbitration Act 1996 exclusive jurisdiction arbitration appointment

M P Power Trading Co Ltd & Anr v. Narmada Equipments Pvt Ltd

23 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the State Electricity Commission over disputes between licensees and generating companies, thereby ousting court jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint arbitrators in such disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 86(1)(f) Electricity Act 2003 Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 exclusive jurisdiction arbitration appointment

U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Asha Ram

23 Mar 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's compensation of Rs. 120 per square yard for land acquired in 1982-87, rejecting the High Court's enhancement to Rs. 297 based on later precedents and sale deeds.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation market value Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad

Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd

22 Mar 2021 · Indira Banerjee; Hemant Gupta · 2021 INSC 199

The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 7 IBC applications, allowing exclusion of time spent in bona fide SARFAESI proceedings, and delay beyond three years can be condoned without a formal application under Section 5, dismissing the appeal and upholding insolvency initiation.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 7 IBC Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14 Limitation Act

Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd

22 Mar 2021 · Indira Banerjee; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court held that time spent prosecuting bona fide SARFAESI proceedings is excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for limitation computation of Section 7 IBC applications, and delay can be condoned without a formal Section 5 application, dismissing the appeal and upholding CIRP initiation.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 7 IBC Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14 Limitation Act

Ramesh Alias Dapinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

22 Mar 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; K.M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that mere presence without specific overt acts or shared common intention is insufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC, acquitting the appellant of murder charges but upholding conviction for causing hurt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 34 IPC common intention vicarious liability murder

Narbada Devi and Ors. v. H.P. State Forest Corporation

22 Mar 2021 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court held that death due to alcohol-induced asphyxia is not accidental under the insurance policy, absolving the insurer and employer of liability under the policy, with employer’s liability confined to the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant accidental death insurance policy liability asphyxia intoxication exclusion

Narbada Devi and Ors. v. H.P. State Forest Corporation & Anr.

22 Mar 2021 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court held that death due to alcohol-induced asphyxia is not accidental under the insurance policy, absolving the insurer and employer of liability under the policy, with employer liability confined to the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant accidental death insurance policy asphyxia intoxication exclusion

K. Prakash & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka

19 Mar 2021 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court confirmed the appellants' conviction for kidnapping under IPC but modified their sentence to the period already served, emphasizing humane consideration at sentencing.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant kidnapping Section 344 IPC Section 366 IPC Section 34 IPC

State of Kerala v. Mahesh

19 Mar 2021 · Indira Banerjee; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order in a murder case, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion considering the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail heinous offence murder prima facie evidence

K. Prakash & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka

19 Mar 2021 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellants for kidnapping a minor but modified their sentence to the period already served, emphasizing a human approach to sentencing.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant kidnapping minor girl Section 344 IPC Section 366 IPC

Government of Maharashtra v. M/S Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

19 Mar 2021 · R. F. Nariman; B. R. Gavai; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act must be filed within 120 days including the grace period, and delay beyond this period is not condonable to uphold the object of speedy arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37 appeal Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5 Limitation Act

Government of Maharashtra v. M/S Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

19 Mar 2021 · R. F. Nariman; B. R. Gavai; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld that appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act must be filed within prescribed limitation periods with limited condonation of delay, affirming the principle of speedy arbitration dispute resolution.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37 appeal Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5 Limitation Act

Aparna Bhat & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

18 Mar 2021 · A. M. Khanwilkar; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside bail conditions mandating accused's contact with the survivor in a sexual offence case and issued guidelines to eliminate judicial stereotyping and ensure gender-sensitive bail orders.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail conditions sexual offences judicial stereotyping gender sensitization

Aparna Bhat & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

18 Mar 2021 · A. M. Khanwilkar; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside bail conditions mandating accused-survivor contact in a sexual offence case and issued guidelines to eliminate judicial stereotyping and ensure gender-sensitive judicial conduct.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail conditions sexual offences judicial stereotyping gender sensitization

Aman Lohia v. Kiran Lohia

17 Mar 2021 · A.M. Khanwilkar; B.R. Gavai; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court set aside the Family Court's ex parte guardianship orders for procedural violations and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication prioritizing the child's welfare and due process.

family appeal_allowed Significant guardianship Family Courts Act, 1984 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 natural justice

Aman Lohia v. Kiran Lohia

17 Mar 2021 · A.M. Khanwilkar; B.R. Gavai; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court set aside ex parte guardianship orders passed without notice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication following mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice, emphasizing the paramount welfare of the child.

family appeal_partly_allowed Significant Guardianship Family Courts Act, 1984 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Natural justice

Neena Aneja & Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.

16 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah

The Supreme Court held that complaints filed under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be adjudicated by the new forums established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 according to the new pecuniary jurisdiction limits, dismissing the appeal against the NCDRC's jurisdictional dismissal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act 2019 Consumer Protection Act 1986 Repeal and savings Pecuniary jurisdiction