Supreme Court of India
8,182 judgments
Bhima Razu Prasad v. State
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.
Bhima Razu Prasad v. State
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.
MALLANAGUODA AND ORS v. NINGANAGOUDA AND ORS
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.
MALLANAGUODA AND ORS v. NINGANAGOUDA AND ORS
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.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pankaj Kumar
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.
Hari Shankar Agrawal v. Rajasthan State & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that cognizance under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can only be taken against the duly nominated person and quashed proceedings against the appellant who was not the nominated person.
Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr.
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.
Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr.
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.
M/s Kanbartal Linters Works India Pvt. Ltd. v. BSESNL
The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act must comply with the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to the arbitration award as barred by limitation.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.
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.
M/s Kanbartal Linetas Works India Pvt. Ltd. v. BSESNL
The Supreme Court held that a challenge to an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed within three years as per the Limitation Act, 1963, and dismissed the appeal filed beyond this period as barred by limitation.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. v. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.
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.
PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH
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.
PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH
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.
Swaati Nirkhi & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the criminal trial must be held in the court within whose jurisdiction the offence occurred and dismissed the petition seeking transfer of the case from Delhi to Allahabad.
Swaati Nirkhi & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the criminal trial must be held where the offence occurred and dismissed the petition seeking transfer of trial from Delhi to Allahabad, emphasizing the primacy of cause of action and convenience of witnesses.
Hampshire Hotels and Resorts (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Maheshwari
The Supreme Court closed contempt petitions against NOIDA for non-execution of supplementary lease deeds by directing resale of plots with refund and interest to allottees, balancing their rights and public interest.
Hampshire Hotels and Resorts (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Maheshwari
The Supreme Court resolved a decade-long dispute over NOIDA hotel plot allotments by directing resale of plots with refund of amounts paid plus interest, balancing allottees' rights and public interest.
M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
The Supreme Court held that only the Customs officer who assessed and cleared goods or his successor can initiate recovery proceedings under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, invalidating recovery notices issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in this case.
State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh
The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s quashing of the reservation order for Goa municipal elections, emphasizing the constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters but recognizing the need to ensure compliance with reservation mandates and SEC independence.