Supreme Court of India

16,356 judgments

Year:

M/s Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd v. Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni

17 Dec 2019 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that delay in possession due to force majeure extends the delivery period, but the developer is liable for compensation thereafter, awarding Rs 5 per sq ft for six months and Rs 10 lakhs lump sum for further delay, while moderating excessive interest claims.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant possession delay force majeure compensation for delay sale deed

M/s Genentech Inc. & Ors v. Drug Controller General of India & Ors

17 Dec 2019 · R. Banumathi; A. S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy · 2019 INSC 1391

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's interim order allowing unrestricted marketing of a biosimilar drug, reinstating protective conditions pending final suit disposal to balance innovator rights and public health.

civil appeal_allowed Significant biosimilar drug Trastuzumab interim relief passing off

M/s Genentech Inc. & Ors v. Drug Controller General of India & Ors

17 Dec 2019 · R. Banumathi; A. S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court Division Bench's interim order allowing unrestricted marketing of a biosimilar drug, restoring the Single Judge's conditional interim order pending final suit disposal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant biosimilar drug Trastuzumab interim relief passing off

Chandigarh Housing Board v. M/s. Parasvanath Developers Pvt. Ltd.

17 Dec 2019 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court upheld the consumer forum's order apportioning liability between the Developer and Chandigarh Housing Board for refund and compensation to a flat buyer, rejecting CHB's plea to absolve it from mental harassment and litigation costs and affirming the enhanced interest rate.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Tripartite Agreement Consumer Protection Compensation Mental Harassment

Saketa Vaksana LLP v. Kaukutla Sarala

17 Dec 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court dismissed the developer's appeal against the High Court's interim order vacating injunction on possession in a land sale dispute, emphasizing that disputed factual issues must be decided at trial while maintaining injunction against alienation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Specific Performance Temporary Injunction Possession Agreement of Sale

Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)

17 Dec 2019 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that arbitrators must be appointed strictly as per the contractual arbitration clause and panels, rejecting the High Court's appointment of an independent sole arbitrator outside the agreed procedure.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 11(6) General Conditions of Contract

Raj Kumari v. Surinder Pal Sharma

17 Dec 2019 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a Will must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness and that failure to summon all attesting witnesses precludes reliance on Section 71 of the Evidence Act, invalidating the purported Will and restoring the trial court's partition decree.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Will execution Indian Succession Act Section 63 Evidence Act Sections 68 and 71 attesting witnesses

Raj Kumari v. Surinder Pal Sharma

17 Dec 2019 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held that a registered Will must be proved by examining all attesting witnesses as mandated by law, and failure to do so invalidates the Will despite registration and presumption under the Evidence Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Will execution Indian Succession Act Section 63 Evidence Act Sections 68 and 71 Proof of Will

Kooli Saseendran & Ors. v. State of Kerala

17 Dec 2019 · Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose · 2019 INSC 1383

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal of accused in a politically motivated murder case due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and procedural lapses, criticizing the High Court's remand order.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly eyewitness testimony contradictions in evidence political animosity

Kooli Saseendran & Ors. v. State of Kerala

17 Dec 2019 · Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal of accused in a politically motivated murder case due to contradictions and deficiencies in prosecution evidence and improper interference by the High Court.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant eyewitness testimony contradictions in evidence benefit of doubt acquittal

Harinder Singh @ Hira v. State of Punjab

17 Dec 2019 · Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Harinder Singh for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confession and recovery of the dead body at his instance.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence extra-judicial confession recovery of dead body Section 302 IPC

Jatinder Kumar v. State of Haryana

17 Dec 2019 · Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband for dowry-related cruelty causing his wife's suicide under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, affirming the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry Section 304-B IPC Section 498-A IPC Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act

Brigadier L.I. Singh YSM v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Dec 2019 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; AJAY RASTOGI

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a retired army officer must be conducted afresh after furnishing the foundational inquiry report to ensure a fair opportunity of defense under Rule 180 of the Army Rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Army Rules 1954 disciplinary proceedings Court of Inquiry one man inquiry report

Brigadier L.I. Singh YSM v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Dec 2019 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; AJAY RASTOGI
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a retired army officer must be conducted afresh after furnishing him the foundational one man inquiry report to ensure a fair opportunity of defense.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Army Rules 1954 disciplinary proceedings Court of Inquiry one man inquiry report

Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar

17 Dec 2019 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 1384

The Supreme Court granted divorce under its Article 142 powers recognizing irretrievable breakdown of marriage despite absence of statutory ground, dissolving a two-decade-long matrimonial dispute.

family appeal_allowed Significant irretrievable breakdown of marriage Article 142 Constitution of India divorce decree Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar

17 Dec 2019 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under its Article 142 powers, dissolving a two-decade-long acrimonious marriage despite absence of statutory provision.

family appeal_allowed Significant irretrievable breakdown of marriage Article 142 Constitution of India divorce Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Manju v. State of Delhi

17 Dec 2019 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; R. Subhash Reddy · 2019 INSC 1385

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC due to incomplete circumstantial evidence and lack of motive, granting benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence chain of circumstances Section 302 IPC murder

Manju v. State of Delhi

17 Dec 2019 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC due to incomplete circumstantial evidence and lack of motive, granting her benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC murder benefit of doubt

University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Dec 2019 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the University of Delhi's appeal due to inordinate delay and laches, emphasizing that long unexplained delay disentitles relief even in public interest matters.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay sufficient cause laches public interest

University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Dec 2019 · R. Banumathi; A.S. Bopanna; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court dismissed the University of Delhi's appeal for condonation of a 916-day delay, holding that the explanation was insufficient and upholding the High Court's dismissal on delay and laches grounds without considering merits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay sufficient cause laches public authority