Supreme Court of India

16,357 judgments

Year:

Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

16 Mar 2021 · Uday Umesh Lalit; S. Ravindra Bhat; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of adjusting reserved category candidates to open category posts in police constable recruitment, dismissing the petition challenging the final select list.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant merit and reservation police constable recruitment reserved category open category

SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD v. M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH & SONS

15 Mar 2021 · R.F. Nariman; B.R. Gavai
Cites 2 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act begins when the cause of action accrues and that courts must limit their scrutiny to the existence of an arbitration agreement, setting aside the High Court's appointment of an arbitrator as the application was time barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Limitation Arbitration agreement

Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana

15 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; M. R. Shah · 2021 INSC 185

The Supreme Court held that a Trial Court can summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on prima facie evidence from examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination, and quashing such summons by the High Court at this stage is impermissible.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 CrPC summoning additional accused examination-in-chief evidence prima facie case

Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana

15 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that a trial court can summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC on prima facie evidence from examination-in-chief without awaiting cross-examination, restoring the summoning order quashed by the High Court.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 CrPC summoning additional accused examination-in-chief evidence prima facie case

Alok Kaushik v. Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan

15 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah

The Supreme Court held that the NCLT has jurisdiction under the IBC to determine fees payable to a registered valuer appointed during CIRP even if the CIRP is subsequently set aside, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Registered Valuer Insolvency Resolution Process Costs

Naveen Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

15 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; M. R. Shah · 2021 INSC 182

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order for an accused charged with forgery and manipulation of court records, emphasizing the gravity of such offences and the need for cautious bail consideration.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail forgery manipulation of court records IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B

Naveen Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

15 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order for an accused charged with forgery and manipulation of court records, emphasizing the gravity of such offences and the need for cautious bail consideration.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail forgery manipulation of court record Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

15 Mar 2021 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah

The Supreme Court held that persons ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC cannot propose schemes under Section 230 of the Companies Act during liquidation, upholding the validity of Regulation 2B prohibiting such participation.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 29A Section 230 Companies Act, 2013 Liquidation

Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi

15 Mar 2021 · Indu Malhotra; Ajay Rastogi · 2021 INSC 177
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC on the ground of civil dispute and arbitration, restoring the trial and clarifying the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings cheating criminal breach of trust

Bhima Razu Prasad v. State

12 Mar 2021 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court held that prosecution under Section 193 IPC for false evidence fabricated during investigation prior to trial does not require a written complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, allowing investigating agencies to initiate such prosecutions without court complaint.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC Section 193 IPC fabrication of false evidence investigative stage offence

Bhima Razu Prasad v. State

12 Mar 2021 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court held that prosecution under Section 193 IPC for fabrication of false evidence during investigation prior to trial does not require a prior written complaint by the court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and upheld the convictions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC Section 193 IPC fabrication of false evidence investigation stage

MALLANAGUODA AND ORS v. NINGANAGOUDA AND ORS

12 Mar 2021 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; S. RAVINDRA BHAT

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the First Appellate Court’s factual findings in a partition suit and upheld the final decree allotting shares in ancestral property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit final decree Section 100 CPC First Appellate Court

MALLANAGUODA AND ORS v. NINGANAGOUDA AND ORS

12 Mar 2021 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; S. RAVINDRA BHAT

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the First Appellate Court’s factual findings in a partition suit, and restored the final decree allotting land to the Plaintiff.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit Section 100 CPC final decree first appellate court

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pankaj Kumar

12 Mar 2021 · A. S. Bopanna

The Supreme Court held that SMS intimation to the mobile number provided by a candidate suffices under recruitment rules and dismissed the respondent's belated claim to participate in the concluded police constable recruitment process.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant recruitment process intimation by SMS postal communication Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Rules 2008

Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr.

10 Mar 2021 · B.R. Gavai; A.M. Khanwilkar; Krishna Murari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that appeals against NCLT orders approving a resolution plan must be filed within the strict limitation period under the I&B Code, and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is not subject to judicial interference absent material irregularity.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 limitation period Section 61 Section 14 Limitation Act

Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr.

10 Mar 2021 · A. M. Khanwilkar; B. R. Gavai; Krishna Murari
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, rejected waiver claims by KIAL, upheld the CoC's commercial wisdom in approving Kalpraj's resolution plan, and restored the NCLT's approval order.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 limitation period resolution plan Committee of Creditors

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.

10 Mar 2021 · Indu Malhotra; Ajay Rastogi · 2021 INSC 175
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the limitation for filing a Section 11 application is three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and courts may refuse arbitration reference only if claims are manifestly ex facie time-barred, setting aside the High Court's order referring a stale dispute to arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Limitation period Article 137 Limitation Act kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.

10 Mar 2021 · Indu Malhotra; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 1 · Cited by 9

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and courts may refuse arbitration reference only if claims are manifestly ex facie time-barred with no subsisting dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Limitation period Article 137 Limitation Act, 1963 Ex facie time-barred claims

PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH

10 Mar 2021 · Indu Malhotra; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot exceed its jurisdiction by granting final relief through an interim order modifying public access to a private road, and set aside such order pending final adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant interim order judicial review Article 226 public road access

PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH

10 Mar 2021 · Indu Malhotra; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying an interim order restricting public access to a road, emphasizing that interim orders should not grant final relief or alter substantive rights during pendency of writ petitions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant interim order public road access judicial review Article 226