Supreme Court of India

18,587 judgments

Year:

Raj Pal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

25 Aug 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that capital gains on compulsory land acquisition accrue on the date of award fixing compensation, not on the date of notification, and upheld taxability accordingly.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital gains date of transfer land acquisition Land Acquisition Act 1894

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; K M Joseph · 2020 INSC 503
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that flat buyers are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for gross delay in possession beyond the inadequate contractual rate, and execution of conveyance deeds does not bar such claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant Apartment Buyers Agreement delay in possession deficiency of service consumer protection

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; K M Joseph
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that flat buyers are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for gross delay in possession beyond the limited contractual rate, and execution of conveyance deeds does not bar such claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant delayed possession consumer protection deficiency of service Apartment Buyers Agreement

Vikrant Singh Malik v. Supertech Limited

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court held that a representative consumer complaint under Section 12(1)(c) requires a common grievance and relief on behalf of all consumers interested, and restored the complaint for reconsideration in light of this principle.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12(1)(c) representative complaint same interest

Vikrant Singh Malik v. Supertech Limited

24 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court held that representative consumer complaints under Section 12(1)(c) require commonality of interest and restored the dismissed complaint for reconsideration by the NCDRC in light of this principle.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 12(1)(c) representative complaint common interest

SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS.

21 Aug 2020 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; KRISHNA MURARI; S. RAVINDRA BHAT

The Supreme Court held that appellants not party to the suit and whose rights are unaffected by the decree cannot maintain an appeal without leave as 'persons aggrieved'.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi person aggrieved appeal leave to appeal

Sardar Bahginder Singh v. Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh

20 Aug 2020 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court held that the exclusive power to nominate four members to the Nanded Gurudwara Board under Section 6(1)(viii) of the 1956 Act lies with the collective body of the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, not the State Government, and directed the nomination process to be conducted accordingly.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956 Section 6(1)(viii) Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950

AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED

19 Aug 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court held that mere allegations of fraud do not render disputes non-arbitrable and upheld interim relief in support of foreign arbitration proceedings governed by Singapore law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration fraud non-arbitrability section 9 Arbitration Act

AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED

19 Aug 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court held that mere allegations of fraud do not render disputes non-arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the enforceability of a foreign arbitral award and interim relief granted to HSBC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration fraud arbitrability Section 9 Arbitration Act

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut v. M/s. Cera Boards and Doors, Kannur

19 Aug 2020 · S. A. Bobde; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubramanian · 2020 INSC 495

The Supreme Court clarified the correct method of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, holding that differential duty demands must be transaction-wise and evidence-based, and remanded the cases for re-quantification accordingly.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 4 valuation normal price transaction value

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut v. M/s. Cera Boards and Doors, Kannur

19 Aug 2020 · S. A. Bobde; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court clarified the correct method of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act before and after 01.07.2000, holding that differential duty demands must be based on transaction-wise evidence and not generalized across all transactions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 4 valuation normal price transaction value

DECCAN PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. v. REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES

19 Aug 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha; Indira Banerjee · 2020 INSC 497

The Supreme Court upheld the referral of a fraud-related dispute over development rights to arbitration, holding that serious fraud allegations do not oust arbitrability unless the arbitration agreement itself is non-existent, and that cancellation suits under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act are arbitrable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement fraud exception Section 8 Arbitration Act Specific Relief Act Section 31

Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors.

19 Aug 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court held that allegations of fraud do not render disputes non-arbitrable unless the arbitration agreement itself is alleged never to have been executed, and that suits for cancellation of contracts under the Specific Relief Act are arbitrable actions in personam.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration fraud exception Section 8 Arbitration Act Specific Relief Act Section 31

Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors.

19 Aug 2020 · Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that investigation cannot be transferred under Section 406 CrPC, upheld Patna Police's jurisdiction to register FIR, and directed the CBI to conduct a unified investigation to ensure impartiality.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 406 CrPC Section 174 CrPC FIR jurisdiction CBI investigation

Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors.

19 Aug 2020 · Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that the Patna Police lawfully registered the FIR and investigation, Section 174 CrPC proceedings are not investigations, and directed continuation of the CBI investigation with power to investigate any future FIR on the matter to ensure complete justice.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 406 CrPC Section 174 CrPC jurisdiction CBI investigation

Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

19 Aug 2020 · S. A. Bobde; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the State-constituted Commission of Inquiry on grounds of bias based solely on unverified newspaper reports, affirming the high threshold for proving bias and the limited role of such Commissions.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Commission of Inquiry bias conflict of interest newspaper reports

Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

19 Aug 2020 · S. A. Bobde; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry based on unverified newspaper reports, holding that such allegations of bias require cogent evidence and that the Commission's findings are investigatory and non-binding.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Commission of Inquiry bias conflict of interest newspaper reports

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

18 Aug 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 494
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that the existing National Disaster Management Plan and relief guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 adequately cover COVID-19, and rejected the petitioner's demand for a separate plan and fund consolidation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Disaster Management Act, 2005 National Disaster Management Plan COVID-19 pandemic National Disaster Response Fund

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

18 Aug 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that the existing National Disaster Management Plan and guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 adequately cover COVID-19, and the Union is not required to prepare a separate plan or transfer PM CARES Fund monies to the National Disaster Response Fund.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Disaster Management Act, 2005 National Disaster Management Plan COVID-19 pandemic National Disaster Response Fund

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

14 Aug 2020 · Arun Mishra; B.R. Gavai; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court held that the Monitoring Committee lacks authority to seal residential premises on private land not used for commercial purposes, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Monitoring Committee Sealing of premises Residential premises Commercial misuse