Supreme Court of India

18,587 judgments

Year:

Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand

02 Dec 2020 · N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant · 2020 INSC 670

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant for lack of specific evidence of dowry harassment, setting aside his conviction under Section 498-A IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498-A IPC dowry harassment conviction acquittal

Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand

02 Dec 2020 · N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant from dowry harassment charges due to lack of specific and corroborative evidence, setting aside the concurrent conviction of lower courts.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498-A IPC dowry harassment concurrent conviction hostile witnesses

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others

02 Dec 2020 · R. F. Nariman; K. M. Joseph; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court mandated installation and oversight of CCTV cameras with audio-video recording in all police stations and investigative agencies to safeguard fundamental rights under Article 21 and ensure accountability in custodial investigations.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant CCTV cameras police stations audio-video recording Section 161(3) CrPC

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others

02 Dec 2020 · R. F. Nariman; K. M. Joseph; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court mandated installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras with oversight mechanisms in all police stations and investigative agencies to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 and ensure transparency in custodial investigations.

criminal other Significant CCTV cameras videography police stations custodial violence

M/S. PANTHER SECURITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

02 Dec 2020 · Navin Sinha; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court held that a private security agency providing trained guards is covered under the EPF Act as an employer liable to deposit statutory dues, dismissing the appellant's challenge.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 expert services employer-employee relationship

M/S. PANTHER SECURITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

02 Dec 2020 · Navin Sinha; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court held that a private security agency providing trained guards is covered under the EPF Act as an expert service employer liable to deposit statutory dues, dismissing the appellant’s challenge.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 expert services employer-employee relationship

S.D. CONTAINERS INDORE v. M/S. MOLD TEK PACKAGING LTD.

01 Dec 2020 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; HEMANT GUPTA; AJAY RASTOGI · 2020 INSC 668
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that suits involving cancellation of registered designs under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 must be transferred to the High Court having jurisdiction over the cause of action, and not tried by Commercial Courts at the District level where the High Court lacks ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Designs Act 2000 Commercial Courts Act 2015 Section 22(4) Designs Act jurisdiction

S.D. CONTAINERS INDORE v. M/S. MOLD TEK PACKAGING LTD

01 Dec 2020 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; HEMANT GUPTA; AJAY RASTOGI
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that suits involving cancellation pleas under the Designs Act must be tried by the competent Commercial Court where the High Court lacks original jurisdiction, setting aside an improper transfer to another High Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Designs Act, 2000 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 22(4) Cancellation of design registration

The State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.

01 Dec 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; Indu Malhotra · 2020 INSC 667
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the State of Jharkhand is estopped from denying retrospective electricity duty exemption promised in its Industrial Policy 2012 due to administrative delay in issuing implementing notifications.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant promissory estoppel legitimate expectation Industrial Policy 2012 electricity duty exemption

The State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.

01 Dec 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; Indu Malhotra
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the State is estopped from denying electricity duty exemption promised in the Industrial Policy 2012 due to administrative delay, applying promissory estoppel to grant retrospective effect to the exemption notification.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant promissory estoppel legitimate expectation industrial policy electricity duty exemption

INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE LIMITED v. NEPTUNE OVERSEAS LIMITED

27 Nov 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Hrishikesh Roy · 2020 INSC 663

The Supreme Court held that substantial compliance with natural justice requires adequate time and documents to respond to show cause notices, set aside the impugned order, and directed fresh proceedings before SEBI with full opportunity to the respondents.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant principles of natural justice show cause notice Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 Securities Appellate Tribunal

INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE LIMITED v. NEPTUNE OVERSEAS LIMITED

27 Nov 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that substantial compliance with natural justice requires timely supply of documents and adequate hearing opportunity, directing SEBI to proceed afresh without issuing a new show cause notice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant principles of natural justice show cause notice Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 Securities Appellate Tribunal

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra

27 Nov 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indira Banerjee · 2020 INSC 665
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of High Court's power to quash FIRs and grant bail under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC, upheld the lawfulness of reinvestigation without prior judicial sanction, and directed expeditious bail consideration under Section 439 CrPC in the case of Arnab Goswami's arrest under Section 306 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 306 IPC Abetment to suicide Section 482 CrPC Article 226 Constitution

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra

27 Nov 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to grant interim bail and held that reinvestigation after an 'A' summary is lawful, emphasizing judicial restraint in quashing FIRs and directing the appellant to seek bail under Section 439 CrPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 306 IPC Abetment of suicide Section 482 CrPC Quashing of FIR

Dr. Prerit Sharma & Ors. v. Dr. Bilu B.S. & Ors.

27 Nov 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses cannot be implemented mid-stream for the 2020-2021 academic year once the admission process has commenced without such reservation.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reservation in-service doctors Super Specialty Medical Courses NEET

Dr. Prerit Sharma & Ors. v. Dr. Bilu B.S. & Ors.

27 Nov 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses cannot be implemented mid-stream for the 2020-2021 academic year and directed counselling to proceed without such reservation, reserving the question of validity for final hearing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reservation in-service doctors Super Specialty Medical Courses NEET-SS 2020

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India

27 Nov 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the 2020 Tribunal Rules for undermining judicial independence and directed reforms including judicial dominance in appointments, adequate tenure, advocate eligibility, and establishment of an independent National Tribunals Commission.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Tribunals Judicial independence Search-cum-Selection Committee Separation of powers

Gajendra Sharma v. Union of India

27 Nov 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy; M.R. Shah · 2020 INSC 662

The Supreme Court upheld the RBI moratorium notification charging interest during the COVID-19 moratorium period, while directing implementation of the Government's ex-gratia relief scheme compensating eligible borrowers.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant moratorium interest accrual COVID-19 pandemic Disaster Management Act, 2005

Gajendra Sharma v. Union of India

27 Nov 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy; M.R. Shah

The Supreme Court upheld the RBI moratorium notification charging interest during COVID-19 lockdown but disposed the petition on the Government’s relief scheme granting ex-gratia payment to eligible borrowers.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant moratorium interest on loan COVID-19 pandemic Disaster Management Act, 2005

Manohar Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan

26 Nov 2020 · Indira Banerjee; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that seniority in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department is determined by date of appointment, not selection date, thereby upholding departmental promotees' seniority over direct recruits appointed later.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant seniority direct recruits departmental promotees Rule 27