Supreme Court of India

16,356 judgments

Year:

Girija A v. The State of Kerala

21 Jan 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 66

The Supreme Court held that appeals against sentences of fine, including composite sentences with imprisonment, do not abate on the death of the accused and must be heard with opportunity to legal heirs.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant abatement of appeal sentence of fine composite sentence death of accused

Girija A v. The State of Kerala

21 Jan 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that an appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine does not abate on the death of the accused and must be continued by legal heirs, directing the High Court to hear the appeal afresh with their participation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant abatement of appeal sentence of fine composite sentence death of accused

Duleshwar & Anr. v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)

21 Jan 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld convictions of multiple accused for murder and rioting under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 325 IPC based on reliable eyewitness testimony and formation of unlawful assembly with common object.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant unlawful assembly Section 149 IPC murder multiple accused

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. MSTC LIMITED

21 Jan 2020 · R. F. Nariman; V. Ramasubramanian · 2020 INSC 72

The Supreme Court held that review petitions under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules are not applications under Section 19 of the RDB Act and thus not subject to limitation condonation under Section 24, setting aside the High Court's order condoning delay and allowing the appeal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Debt Recovery Tribunal Review petition Limitation Act, 1963

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. MSTC LIMITED

21 Jan 2020 · R. F. Nariman; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that review petitions under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Rules are not applications under Section 19 of the RDB Act and cannot have delay condoned beyond 30 days, setting aside the High Court's order condoning such delay.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Debt Recovery Tribunal Review petition Limitation Act, 1963

Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly

21 Jan 2020 · R.F. Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule within a reasonable time, allowing judicial review for failure to act, but declined to issue writs against a sitting member without prior Speaker decision.

constitutional appeal_partly_allowed Significant Tenth Schedule Disqualification Speaker Judicial Review

Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly

21 Jan 2020 · R.F. Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule within a reasonable time, limiting judicial review to jurisdictional errors and rejecting pre-decision writs, while directing prompt adjudication to uphold the anti-defection law.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Tenth Schedule Anti-defection law Speaker's jurisdiction Judicial review

CHANABASAPPA v. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.

21 Jan 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court held that interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be awarded prior to the notification under section 4 and directed the Collector to determine damages for submergence before notification.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 4 notification Section 34 interest Compensation for submergence

CHANABASAPPA v. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.

21 Jan 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee

Interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act can only run from the date of Section 4 notification or possession, and damages for pre-notification submergence must be determined by the Collector.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 notification Section 34 interest compensation

Indu Bai & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

21 Jan 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order allowing the State’s writ petitions concerning land allotment, holding that transferred land remains part of the compensation pool and appellants claiming tenancy rights must seek relief through proper legal forums.

property appeal_allowed Significant pre-partition tenants land transfer compensation pool displaced persons

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mill & Anr.

21 Jan 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the insurer's repudiation of a fire insurance claim based on consistent survey reports indicating structural failure, allowing the appeal and setting aside the NCDRC's award in favor of the insured.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Insurance claim repudiation Section 64-UM Insurance Act Surveyor report Successive surveyors

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mill & Anr.

21 Jan 2020 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the insurer's repudiation of a fire insurance claim based on consistent expert reports of structural failure, clarifying the lawful appointment of successive surveyors under Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Insurance claim repudiation Section 64-UM Insurance Act Surveyor report Successive surveyors

Union of India v. R. Karthik

21 Jan 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order mitigating a Sailor's dismissal to detention and badge deprivation, emphasizing proportionality and procedural fairness in military disciplinary proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal Navy Act 1957 Section 45(a) disciplinary proceedings

Union of India v. R. Karthik

21 Jan 2020 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order mitigating a Sailor's dismissal to detention and badge deprivation, emphasizing proportionality and procedural fairness in military disciplinary actions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Navy Act, 1957 Section 45(a) military disciplinary proceedings

Chandra Mohan Varma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

21 Jan 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that the extension of retirement age for medical teachers to 65 years applies prospectively and does not benefit those who had already attained superannuation before the notification, with session ending benefit not altering the retirement date.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant age of superannuation session ending benefit medical teachers retirement Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules

Chandra Mohan Varma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

21 Jan 2020 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the enhancement of retirement age to 65 years applies prospectively and does not benefit medical faculty who had already attained 60 years before the notification, with session ending benefit not postponing superannuation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant age of superannuation session ending benefit Fundamental Rules special order

Paul v. State of Kerala

21 Jan 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the appellant's plea of suicide and sudden fight, and held that intoxication did not negate the requisite intention.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC murder culpable homicide not amounting to murder Section 300 IPC exceptions

Paul v. State of Kerala

21 Jan 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the appellant's plea of suicide and sudden fight, and held that intoxication does not negate the intention to cause death.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC murder culpable homicide Section 300 IPC exceptions

HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE v. MAGNUM POWER GENERATION LIMITED

21 Jan 2020 · R. F. Nariman; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that fixed costs under a power purchase agreement must be paid despite non-supply of power when mandated by a regulatory tariff order, allowing the appellant's claim against the respondent.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Power Purchase Agreement fixed cost recovery Plant Load Factor Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission

HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE v. MAGNUM POWER GENERATION LIMITED

21 Jan 2020 · R. F. Nariman; Rohinton Fali Nariman; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that fixed costs under a power purchase agreement must be paid to the generator despite no power supply when mandated by a regulatory tariff order, setting aside contrary orders of the regulatory commission and appellate tribunal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Power Purchase Agreement Fixed Cost Plant Load Factor Tariff Order