Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)

27 Aug 2019 · S. Abdul Nazeer; B. R. Gavai; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubraman... · 2022 INSC 1280

The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench the question whether, in absence of direct evidence from the complainant, guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be inferred from other evidence, emphasizing that proof of demand is essential and mere recovery of tainted notes is insufficient.

criminal other Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 Section 13(1)(d) Section 20

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)

27 Aug 2019 · S. Abdul Nazeer; B. R. Gavai; A. S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubraman...
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench the question whether, in absence of direct evidence from the complainant, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by inferential or circumstantial evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

criminal other Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 Section 13(1)(d) Section 20

Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale v. State of Maharashtra

26 Aug 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra · 2019 INSC 954

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal directing consideration for compassionate appointment despite a government ban, emphasizing the applicant's qualifications, vacancies, and policy relaxations.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment government ban monetary benefits provident fund

Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale v. State of Maharashtra

26 Aug 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra

The Supreme Court allowed compassionate appointment to the appellant, holding that receipt of monetary benefits does not bar appointment if the candidate is qualified and vacancies exist, directing authorities to consider the application in light of government policies.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment government resolution monetary benefits provident fund

Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

26 Aug 2019 · Arun Mishra; S. Abdul Nazeer; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that the State Government's arbitrary de-notification of land acquired for public housing layout without hearing the beneficiary society was invalid, emphasizing strict adherence to planned urban development and lawful exercise of withdrawal powers under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 48 withdrawal De-notification of land Planned urban development

Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

26 Aug 2019 · Arun Mishra; S. Abdul Nazeer; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that the State Government's arbitrary de-notification of land acquired for a planned housing layout under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act was unlawful, emphasizing the primacy of public interest and planned urban development over private claims.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 48 withdrawal De-notification of land Planned urban development

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. SHRISTI SINGH

26 Aug 2019 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; HEMANT GUPTA

The Supreme Court upheld UPSC's rejection of a candidate's application for Drug Inspector post due to non-fulfillment of prescribed experience criteria, setting aside Tribunal and High Court orders in her favor.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drug Inspector recruitment eligibility criteria experience certificate Schedule C drugs

Union Public Service Commission v. Shristi Singh

26 Aug 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court upheld UPSC's rejection of a candidate's application for Drug Inspector post due to non-fulfillment of prescribed experience criteria, setting aside lower courts' orders.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant eligibility criteria experience certificate Drug Inspector recruitment Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945

Samsul Haque v. State of Assam

26 Aug 2019 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 953

The Supreme Court acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3, and 9 due to failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and improper compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of fair trial and cautious evaluation of evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reversal of acquittal Common intention Abetment

Samsul Haque v. State of Assam

26 Aug 2019 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K. M. Joseph
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted accused Nos. 9, 2, and 3 due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses under Section 313 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of fair trial and proper examination of accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 313 Cr.P.C. abetment common intention reversal of acquittal

Seenivasan v. The State by Inspector of Police & Anr.

23 Aug 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; R. Subhash Reddy · 2019 INSC 950

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused lacking specific allegations and residence connection, holding such prosecution an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings dowry harassment abuse of process

Seenivasan v. The State by Inspector of Police & Anr.

23 Aug 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused lacking specific allegations and residence in the complainant's family, holding such continuation an abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of proceedings dowry harassment abuse of process

Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi

23 Aug 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the Managing Director of a hotel company for lack of specific allegations of active role and criminal intent, clarifying principles of corporate criminal liability and vicarious liability under IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. Corporate criminal liability Vicarious liability Section 336 IPC

National Aluminium Company Limited v. Subhash Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

23 Aug 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that disputes under a valid arbitration agreement must be resolved by arbitration and objections to the arbitration agreement's validity cannot be challenged by civil suit but only before the arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 7 Arbitration Act Section 16 Arbitration Act jurisdiction of arbitrator

Union of India v. Brig. Devinder Singh

23 Aug 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta · 2019 INSC 948

The Supreme Court held that confidential military reports prepared for strategic purposes are not subject to judicial review or correction by courts, and set aside the Tribunal's direction to alter such reports.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal After-Action Report Battle Performance Report Operation Vijay

Union of India v. Brig. Devinder Singh

23 Aug 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court held that confidential military operational reports prepared for strategic purposes are not subject to judicial review or correction by courts or tribunals.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal After-Action Report Operation Vijay judicial review

Air India Express Ltd. v. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu

22 Aug 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran · 2019 INSC 946
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a pilot's resignation, once accepted and a replacement trained in accordance with the Civil Aviation Requirement, cannot be withdrawn before becoming effective, prioritizing public interest over the general right to withdraw resignation.

labor appeal_allowed Significant resignation withdrawal pilot employment Civil Aviation Requirement notice period

Air India Express Ltd. and Others v. Capt. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu

22 Aug 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a pilot cannot withdraw a resignation after acceptance and after the employer has acted upon it in accordance with the Civil Aviation Requirement mandating a six-month notice period to protect public interest.

labor appeal_allowed Significant resignation withdrawal pilot employment Civil Aviation Requirement notice period

The State of Maharashtra v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Pvt. Ltd.

22 Aug 2019 · R. Banumathi; A. S. Bopanna · 2019 INSC 945

The Supreme Court held that seed storage and sale require valid licences, packaging and labelling are not processing, and Seed Inspectors have power to seal premises in exceptional cases, setting aside the High Court's order desealing the respondent's godown.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Seeds Act, 1966 Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 Seed Inspector powers licensing for seed storage and sale

The State of Maharashtra v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Pvt. Ltd.

22 Aug 2019 · R. Banumathi; A. S. Bopanna

The Supreme Court held that seed dealers require valid licences for storage and sale including packaging activities, and Seed Inspectors have the power to seal premises under the Seeds Act, 1966 with due procedural safeguards.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Seeds Act, 1966 Seed Inspector powers Sealing of premises Seeds (Control) Order, 1983