Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Nandini Sharma v. Registrar Supreme Court of India

· K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rules conferring exclusive rights on Advocates on Record to practice before it, dismissing the challenge that such Rules violate fundamental rights or the Advocates Act.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Advocate on Record Supreme Court Rules 2013 Article 145 Constitution of India Section 52 Advocates Act 1961

Nandini Sharma v. Registrar Supreme Court of India

· K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Advocates on Record system and Rules conferring exclusive rights to them to practice before the Supreme Court, dismissing the challenge on grounds of unreasonableness and discrimination.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Advocates on Record Supreme Court Rules 2013 Article 145 Constitution Advocates Act 1961

Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul

· A. S. Bopanna; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · 2022 INSC 1216
Cites 2 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that demurrages cannot be recovered as "charges" under the Food Corporation of India's road transport contracts where contractors are not responsible for loading/unloading, dismissing the Corporation's appeals and upholding the High Court's decisions.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant demurrages contract interpretation Food Corporation of India charges

Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul

· A. S. Bopanna; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that demurrages imposed by Railways cannot be recovered by the Food Corporation of India from contractors under the contract clause for "charges," as the contractors had no obligation for loading/unloading causing such demurrages.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant demurrages contract interpretation Food Corporation of India contractual liability

T. J. Parameshwarappa v. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

· Nagarathna J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court clarified that compensation for permanent disability in motor accident claims must be based on the actual loss of earning capacity, not merely the percentage of disability, and enhanced the claimant's compensation accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation permanent disability loss of earning capacity assessment of damages

M/s Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. v. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

· B.V. Nagarathna; B.R. Gavai

The Supreme Court restored the State Commission's award of compensation for deficiency in forwarding services causing dishonor of Letter of Credit, holding respondents jointly liable.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in service Letter of Credit Forwarder Cargo Receipt

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS

· Dinesh Maheshwari; J. B. Pardiwala · 2022 INSC 1293

The Supreme Court upheld that excess electricity consumption beyond connected load is unauthorised use attracting penalty at twice the tariff, but limited penalty applies where excess use is in the same premises and purpose without tariff change, validating Kerala's regulatory exception.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorised use of electricity Section 126 Electricity Act 2003 connected load tariff assessment

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS

· Dinesh Maheshwari; J. B. Pardiwala · 2022 INSC 1293

The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's ruling that penalty for unauthorised excess electricity use is generally twice the tariff for the higher category, but limited to twice fixed charges when overdrawal occurs in the same premises and tariff without tariff change, validating Regulation 153(15) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorised use of electricity Section 126 Electricity Act 2003 penalty assessment connected load

State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta

· S. Abdul Nazeer; J. B. Pardiwala
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld bail granted under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, holding that prosecution requires substantive offences committed after the Act's commencement, not merely prior charge sheets.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant continuing unlawful activity Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 bail organised crime

State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta

· S. Abdul Nazeer; J. B. Pardiwala
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld bail granted under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, holding that continuing unlawful activity requires a substantive offence committed after the Act's commencement, not merely prior charge sheets.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant continuing unlawful activity Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 bail organised crime

Ram Pratap v. The State of Haryana

· B. R. Gavai; Vikram Nath

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to insufficient circumstantial evidence and unexplained delay in FIR, emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant circumstantial evidence proof beyond reasonable doubt delay in FIR hostile witness

Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana

· B. R. Gavai; Vikram Nath

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a murder case due to insufficient circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant circumstantial evidence proof beyond reasonable doubt delay in FIR hostile witness

Baharul Islam & Ors. v. The Indian Medical Association & Ors.

· B. R. Gavai; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that the Assam Act regulating Rural Health Practitioners was unconstitutional as it encroached upon Parliament's exclusive power under Entry 66 of List I to coordinate and determine standards in medical education, affirming the primacy of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant legislative competence Entry 66 of List I Entry 25 of List III Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

Baharul Islam & Ors. v. The Indian Medical Association & Ors.

· B. R. Gavai; B. V. Nagarathna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the invalidity of the Assam Act for encroaching upon the Union's exclusive power under Entry 66 of List I, affirming that State legislation on medical education must conform to Central standards under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant legislative competence Entry 66 of List I Entry 25 of List III Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

Elumalai @ Venkatesan v. M. Kamala

· K. M. Joseph; Hrishikesh Roy

The Supreme Court held that a Release Deed executed by an heir apparent for consideration creates an equitable estoppel barring the heir and his successors from claiming inheritance rights, notwithstanding their status as Class I heirs under Hindu law.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Release Deed Equitable Estoppel Spes Successionis Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act

Sushil Pandey & Anr. v. State of U.P. Thr. Principal Secretary (Home) & Ors.

· Ajay Rastogi; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court directed recasting of seniority for Assistant Radio Officers by fixing a common date of appointment for promotees and direct recruits, upholding service rules and treating vacancies from death or retirement as fresh.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant seniority promotion direct recruitment combined selection list

Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha

· M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that non-production and non-compliance with statutory requirements of a foundational Power of Attorney preclude drawing a statutory presumption of validity of a sale deed, restoring dismissal of the suit for declaration of title.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Power of Attorney Section 33(1)(c) Registration Act Section 60 Registration Act statutory presumption

Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha

· M. R. Shah; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court held that non-production and non-compliance with statutory requirements of a Power of Attorney preclude drawing a statutory presumption of validity of a sale deed, restoring dismissal of suit for declaration of title.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Power of Attorney Registration Act 1908 Section 33(1)(c) Section 60 Registration Act

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva

· Surya Kant; Vikram Nath
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that All-in-One Integrated Desktop Computers are not 'portable' ADPs under tariff classification and restored their classification under Tariff Item 8471 50 00, allowing the appeals.

tax appeal_allowed Significant tariff classification portable automatic data processing machines Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

State v. Central Bureau of Investigation

· K. M. Shah

The Supreme Court held that default bail granted under Section 167(2) CrPC can be cancelled on merits after investigation completion and charge sheet filing if strong grounds exist, balancing accused's liberty with interests of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant default bail Section 167(2) CrPC bail cancellation charge sheet