Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited & Ors. v. M/S Coromandal Sacks Private Limited

25 Apr 2015 · J. B. Pardiwala; Sandeep Mehta · 2024 INSC 348
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that suits for recovery of money against sick industrial companies during BIFR proceedings are barred under Section 22(1) of the 1985 Act without BIFR consent, rendering such decrees void, and set aside the High Court’s award of 24% compound interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 22(1) Sick Industrial Companies Act BIFR sick industrial company jurisdictional bar

M/S VELLANKI FRAME WORKS v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

18 Dec 2014 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld that sales effected after customs clearance by the importer are inter-State sales liable to CST, rejecting the appellant's claim of high seas sale exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant high seas sale Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Section 5(2) CST Act importer

IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955

17 Dec 2014 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Surya Kant; J B Pardiwala · 2024 INSC 789
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, affirming Parliament's plenary power under Article 11 to confer citizenship on migrants from Bangladesh to Assam beyond constitutional cut-off dates.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Section 6A Citizenship Act Parliamentary competence Article 11 Citizenship Articles 6 and 7 Article 14 discrimination

Satye Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand

11 Oct 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi · 2022 INSC 185

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants due to failure of the prosecution to prove the murder beyond reasonable doubt on incomplete circumstantial evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder burden of proof Section 302 IPC

Satye Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand

11 Oct 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; Bela M. Trivedi

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants due to failure of the prosecution to prove the murder beyond reasonable doubt on incomplete circumstantial evidence and clarified that suspicion and Section 106 Evidence Act do not shift the burden of proof in criminal cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Penna Electricity Limited

25 Aug 2014 · J. B. Pardiwala; K. V. Viswanathan · 2025 INSC 1439
Cites 0 · Cited by 9

The Supreme Court held that power supplied by a gas turbine unit prior to combined cycle COD is firm power payable with fixed charges, aligning unapproved PPAs with regulatory tariff regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Power Purchase Agreement Commercial Operation Date Electricity Act 2003 Fixed Charges

DR. AMARAGOUDA L PATIL v. UNION OF INDIA

08 Jun 2014 · Dipankar Datta; Manmohan · 2025 INSC 201
Cites 0 · Cited by 33

The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy for non-compliance with mandatory statutory eligibility criteria and procedural irregularities, emphasizing strict adherence to qualifications and limited but necessary judicial review.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 eligibility criteria Head of a Department judicial review

Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

10 Apr 2014 · Aravind Kumar; N. V. Anjaria · 2025 INSC 1051

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant mother-in-law of dowry harassment charges under Section 498-A IPC due to lack of credible evidence proving cruelty or dowry demand leading to the daughter-in-law's suicide.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498-A IPC dowry harassment cruelty suicide

M/S. SHIV STEELS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

17 Dec 2012 · J.B. PARDIWALA; SANDEEP MEHTA · 2025 INSC 1126
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Supreme Court held that reassessments under Section 21 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 are invalid if earlier assessments were time-barred under Section 19, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation provisions in tax law.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 Section 19 limitation Section 21 sanction time-barred assessment

Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand

09 Apr 2012 · Aravind Kumar; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1059
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Will do not confer title without a registered sale deed and proper proof, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession and protecting the bona fide purchaser's rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 54 Section 53A Agreement to Sell

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu

08 Oct 2011 · Surya Kant; Hima Kohli
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that the respondent's acts went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, restoring his conviction and sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant attempt to commit rape preparation vs attempt Section 376 IPC Section 511 IPC

M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD.

21 Jul 2011 · Abhay S. Oka; Sanjay Karol · 2023 INSC 1059
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that appeals under the Jogighopa Act are not governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, and in absence of prescribed limitation, appeals must be filed within reasonable time, allowing the delayed appeal filed by the appellant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 116 Jogighopa Act, 1990 Commissioner of Payments

Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan v. State of West Bengal

09 Dec 2010 · N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja but reduced the sentence to the period already served considering mitigating factors and the law as it stood at the time of the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 ganja possession conscious possession

P. Daivasigamani v. S. Sambandan

15 Jun 2010 · Bela M. Trivedi; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, holding that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness within limitation and that time was not the essence of the contract for immovable property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness limitation Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act

Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

31 May 2010 · Abhay S. Oka; Sanjay Karol · 2023 INSC 924
Cites 8 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC due to unreliable dying declarations and insufficient corroborative evidence, emphasizing strict scrutiny of multiple dying declarations and procedural compliance.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC multiple dying declarations reliability of evidence

Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

27 May 2010 · Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose · 2021 INSC 289
Cites 10 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of appellants for murder and grievous hurt, holding that appellate interference with trial acquittal is justified when the trial Court's judgment is perverse and overlooks consistent, corroborated evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 378 CrPC Acquittal Perverse judgment Eyewitness testimony

Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

27 May 2010 · Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 10 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of appellants for murder and grievous hurt, affirming that appellate courts may interfere with trial acquittals when based on perverse findings and that exaggerations in witness testimony do not vitiate core truthful evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acquittal conviction Section 378 CrPC presumption of innocence

Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)

19 May 2010 · N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; A.S. Bopanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

Trust & Anr. v. Sh. Diwan Chand

05 Apr 2010 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree granting possession to the appellants, holding that respondents failed to disprove appellants' ownership of the disputed property forming part of Khasra No. 4833 and that adverse possession was not established.

civil appeal_allowed Significant possession adverse possession Khasra No. 4833 Local Commissioner report

Trust v. Sh. Diwan Chand

05 Apr 2010 · Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree granting possession to the appellants, holding that the disputed property is part of Khasra No. 4833 owned by them and rejecting respondents' adverse possession claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Khasra No. 4833 adverse possession possession suit Local Commissioner report