Supreme Court of India

18,587 judgments

Year:

Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.

27 Jul 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court enhanced motor accident compensation to Rs. 41.69 lakh applying the correct multiplier and disability factors, awarding 9% interest, thereby clarifying principles for assessing loss of earning capacity and future prospects.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation multiplier method permanent disability loss of earning capacity

Shailendra Swarup v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

27 Jul 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that a director can be penalized under Section 68 of FERA only if proved to be in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of contravention, and set aside penalty imposed on a part-time non-executive director without such proof.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 Section 68 FERA Director liability Part-time non-executive director

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

26 Jul 2020 · S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part 2 IPC, holding that firing a gun in a crowded place with knowledge of likely fatal consequences but without intent constitutes culpable homicide.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant culpable homicide murder Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC

R. Palanisamy & Ors. v. The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Ors.

24 Jul 2020 · S. A. Bobde; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court upheld that promotion to Junior Bailiff post requires prescribed SSLC qualification under Special Rules, dismissing claims based on prior judgments or the 2016 Act.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant promotion Junior Bailiff educational qualification SSLC

Sunil Rathee & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

23 Jul 2020 · Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court allowed transfer of a writ petition challenging Haryana's 10% economically weaker sections reservation to itself under Article 139A, finding the legal questions substantially the same as pending appeals on similar issues.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 139A Constitution of India reservation economically weaker sections 10% reservation

Sunil Rathee & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

23 Jul 2020 · Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court allowed transfer of a writ petition challenging Haryana's 10% reservation for economically weaker sections to itself under Article 139A, holding that the legal questions involved are substantially the same as those in pending Gujarat appeals and are of general importance.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 139A reservation economically weaker sections 10% reservation

Union of India & Anr v. N K Srivasta & Ors

23 Jul 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indu Malhotra; K M Joseph · 2020 INSC 462

The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's finding of medical negligence against Safdarjung Hospital, dismissed the appeal, and left open the general question of the hospital's consumer jurisdiction for future cases with proper factual foundation.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant medical negligence consumer protection jurisdiction free medical services

Union of India v. N K Srivasta

23 Jul 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indu Malhotra; K M Joseph

The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's finding of medical negligence against Safdarjung Hospital, clarified the scope of consumer jurisdiction over hospitals providing free treatment to some patients, and dismissed the appeal with important caveats on jurisdictional issues.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant medical negligence consumer protection hospital liability free medical treatment

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar

23 Jul 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta; Ajay Rastogi · 2020 INSC 644

The Supreme Court quashed the order relegating a long-serving administrative officer to a different service cadre without hearing, holding it violated natural justice and exceeded the scope of prior court directions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant principles of natural justice service cadre revision Bihar Administrative Service Combined Competitive Examination

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar

23 Jul 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court quashed the order relegating a long-serving officer from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service, holding that such action without hearing violates natural justice and misinterprets the Court's earlier directions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant natural justice merit list revision seniority Bihar Administrative Service

Anita Sharma v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

23 Jul 2020 · Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's award holding the car owner liable for rash driving, accepted the eyewitness testimony, and directed enhanced compensation with future prospects in a motor accident claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rash and negligent driving eyewitness credibility preponderance of probabilities

New Delhi & Anr. v. M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

22 Jul 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha; B. R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that the Mumbai Project Office of Samsung Heavy Industries was only an auxiliary liaison office and did not constitute a permanent establishment under the India-Korea DTAA, thus no income was taxable in India on that basis.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant permanent establishment double taxation avoidance agreement turnkey project fixed place of business

New Delhi & Anr. v. M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

22 Jul 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha; B. R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that the Mumbai Project Office of Samsung Heavy Industries was only an auxiliary liaison office and did not constitute a permanent establishment under the India-Korea DTAA, dismissing the tax department's appeal to tax income attributable to it.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant permanent establishment double taxation avoidance agreement India-Korea DTAA turnkey project

Shiv Raj Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IV

22 Jul 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha; B. R. Gavai
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a non-compete fee received under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt not taxable under Section 28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, and set aside the High Court's decision taxing it as termination compensation.

tax appeal_allowed Significant non-compete fee restrictive covenant Section 28(ii)(a) Income Tax Act capital receipt

Mohammed Yousuff @ Moula v. State of Karnataka

22 Jul 2020 · N. V. Ramana; S. Abdul Nazeer; Surya Kant · 2020 INSC 459

The Supreme Court upheld convictions under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping a minor girl with intent to compel marriage, emphasizing that consent is immaterial and the prosecution proved forcible abduction and confinement.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 366 IPC kidnapping with intent to compel marriage minor victim forcible confinement

Mohammed Yousuff @ Moula v. The State of Karnataka

22 Jul 2020 · N. V. Ramana; S. Abdul Nazeer; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court upheld convictions under Section 366 IPC and related offences, holding that kidnapping a minor with intent to compel marriage is punishable even if the marriage certificate is incomplete.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 366 IPC kidnapping with intent to compel marriage minor victim forcible confinement

Mohd. Anwar v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

22 Jul 2020 · N. V. Ramana; S. Abdul Nazeer; Surya Kant
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for robbery and possession of a prohibited weapon, rejecting belated claims of juvenility and mental illness due to lack of evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery Section 394 IPC Section 25 Arms Act juvenility

Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana

17 Jul 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court held that remission under Article 161 must be exercised with due application of mind to individual cases and cannot be granted solely on a general policy without considering relevant facts, subject to limited judicial review to prevent arbitrariness.

criminal other Significant remission Article 161 Constitution life imprisonment Section 433-A CrPC

Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana

17 Jul 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether remission under Article 161 can be granted by policy without individual case consideration, emphasizing remission powers must be exercised with application of mind and are subject to limited judicial review.

criminal other Significant Article 161 Constitution of India Section 433-A CrPC remission of sentence executive clemency

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

17 Jul 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled only to 50% Capital Investment Subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme-2003, not 75%, and must refund excess subsidy with interest as the higher subsidy provisions were deleted before entitlement.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme-2003 Capital Investment Subsidy sub-clause (vi) and (vii) Clause 7 Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Institution