Supreme Court of India

16,356 judgments

Year:

State of Odisha v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

29 Feb 2020 · S. A. Bobde; B. R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court held that transportation of legally procured and royalty paid iron ore by a purchaser from within a mining lease area is not a mining operation and allowed JSPL to transport the ore subject to compliance by the mining leaseholder.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mining operations transportation of minerals environmental clearance royalty payment

Canara Bank v. P. Selathal

28 Feb 2020 · M. R. Shah; Uday Umesh Lalit; Indira Banerjee

Civil suits challenging Debt Recovery Tribunal decrees are barred under the RDDBFI Act and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC when statutory remedies are available and fraud allegations are illusory.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cause of action

Canara Bank v. P. Selathal

28 Feb 2020 · M. R. Shah; Uday Umesh Lalit; Indira Banerjee

Civil suits challenging a Debt Recovery Tribunal decree are barred under the RDDBFI Act and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if vexatious and without proper pleadings of fraud.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cause of action

Kirti Vijayvargiya v. Rahul Vijayvargiya

28 Feb 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran · 2020 INSC 233

The Supreme Court annulled the marriage of the parties and disposed of their matrimonial disputes upon their mutual settlement under Article 142 of the Constitution.

family appeal_allowed Article 142 Constitution of India annulment of marriage settlement agreement withdrawal of cases

Kirti Vijayvargiya v. Rahul Vijayvargiya

28 Feb 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court annulled the marriage of the parties under Article 142 following their amicable settlement and disposed of all related proceedings accordingly.

family appeal_allowed Article 142 Constitution of India annulment of marriage settlement agreement Section 125 Cr.P.C.

BANK OF INDIA v. M/S. BRINDAVAN AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

28 Feb 2020 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court held that a bank's processing fees and TEV charges debited before loan sanction are valid if authorized and known to the customer, setting aside consumer fora orders directing full refund.

civil appeal_allowed Significant processing fees TEV study loan sanction consumer protection

State of Odisha v. Sri Satya Narayan Behura

28 Feb 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran · 2020 INSC 235

The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the respondent's entitlement to financial upgradation under the RACP Scheme, emphasizing the need for thorough adjudication of all contentions and material.

administrative appeal_allowed Procedural Assured Career Progression Scheme Time Bound Advancement financial upgradation service rules

State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sri Satya Narayan Behura

28 Feb 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court remanded the dispute over financial upgradation under the RACP Scheme for fresh consideration by the High Court after allowing additional evidence and submissions.

administrative appeal_allowed Procedural Assured Career Progression Time Bound Advancement Financial Upgradation Service Rules

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Union of India

28 Feb 2020 · Arun Mishra; M. R. Shah; B. R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that electricity tariff circulars issued by the State Electricity Board before the Regulatory Commission's constitution are valid and cannot be retrospectively quashed, and refunds ordered without merit consideration may cause unjust enrichment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Electricity Regulatory Commission Electricity Supply Act, 1948 Captive Power Plant Policy tariff circulars

SHRI PARESHBHAI AMRUTLAL PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

28 Feb 2020 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court directed transfer and joint trial of two complaints involving the same cheque to avoid conflicting decisions, refusing to quash the later FIR but ensuring consolidated adjudication.

criminal other Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC transfer of proceedings

SHRI PARESHBHAI AMRUTLAL PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

28 Feb 2020 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court directed transfer of FIR proceedings to the court where an earlier cheque bounce complaint is pending for joint hearing, refusing to quash the FIR.

criminal other Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC joint trial

District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.

28 Feb 2020 · Arun Mishra; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 237

The Supreme Court held that advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts as it obstructs justice, amounts to contempt, and violates fundamental rights, upholding the High Court’s directions restraining such strikes.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant lawyers strike boycott of courts freedom of speech and expression Article 19(1)(a)

District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.

28 Feb 2020 · Arun Mishra; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts as it obstructs justice and upheld the High Court’s directions restraining such strikes, emphasizing the duty of Bar Councils to discipline errant advocates.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant lawyers strike boycott of courts freedom of speech and expression Article 19(1)(a)

Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics v. M/s. Almighty Techserv

28 Feb 2020 · Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court granted interim relief allowing the government to proceed with the tender awarded to M/s. ASVA Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. for urgent procurement, subject to withholding disputed amounts pending final hearing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant interim relief government procurement tender evaluation public interest

Bagawe v. State of Maharashtra

27 Feb 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's withdrawal of pay scale benefits granted under a 2004 resolution, clarified entitlement under the 1995 resolution, and limited recovery of excess payments to amounts received after the final tribunal order in 2014.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Government Resolution Pay scale Promotion Junior Clerk

Bagawe v. State of Maharashtra

27 Feb 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's withdrawal of pay scale benefits granted to Junior Clerks, allowing recovery of excess payments only from the date of final adjudication, balancing executive authority and employee rights.

administrative appeal_partly_allowed Significant Government Resolution pay scale Deputy Accountant Junior Clerk

Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

27 Feb 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Deepak Gupta
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the compulsory retirement of two judicial officers, affirming that such orders are non-punitive, require bona fide public interest, consider entire service records including adverse entries, and are subject to limited judicial review.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant compulsory retirement judicial officers public interest washed off theory

Tulsi Narayan Garg v. M.P. Road Development Authority

26 Feb 2020 · N.V. Ramana; Indira Banerjee; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that recovery of liquidated damages as arrears of land revenue is impermissible pending arbitration under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, and quashed the High Court's order permitting such recovery.

civil appeal_allowed Significant liquidated damages arbitral tribunal Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 recovery proceedings

a241b015cd31691baa5ede53643fb34eb9276599cad4b42abf1ab20a0a96fe02

26 Feb 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that mortgage transactions by a corporate debtor securing debts of its holding company are not preferential transactions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code when made in the ordinary course of business.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant preferential transactions Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 Section 43 ordinary course of business

c0397a473822e5afb678a3e856f53c8ae4ed135067b6c3595949afa274c9d787

26 Feb 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that mortgage transactions by a corporate debtor securing loans of its holding company are not preferential under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code when made in the ordinary course of business, allowing the lenders to retain their security interests.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant preferential transactions Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 43 ordinary course of business