Supreme Court of India

16,793 judgments

Year:

Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

· Arun Mishra; Vineet Saran; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court held that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a final Award under Section 11 cannot be reviewed, and Section 13A permits only correction of clerical errors within six months, quashing the unauthorized Review Award.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 11 Award Section 13A correction Review of Award

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others v. State of Gujarat

· Krishna Murari · 2019 INSC 1363

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of appellants in a murder and kidnapping case due to unreliable circumstantial evidence and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory extra-judicial confession identification of dead body

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others v. State of Gujarat

· Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for kidnapping and murder due to unreliable last seen evidence, improper identification of the deceased, and incomplete circumstantial evidence.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory extra-judicial confession identification of deceased

Pranav Verma v. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

· S. A. Bobde; B. R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court upheld the selection process for Haryana Judicial Service exam but directed awarding grace marks to remedy strict marking, rejected re-evaluation, and refused disclosure of marks before viva-voce to ensure fairness and timely completion of recruitment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant judicial service examination evaluation method moderation of marks grace marks

Pranav Verma & Others v. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr

· S. A. Bobde; B. R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court upheld the examination process for Haryana Judicial Service but directed awarding grace marks to remedy strict marking, rejected re-evaluation, and refused disclosure of marks before viva-voce to ensure fairness and timely completion of selection.

administrative petition_allowed Significant judicial service examination evaluation method moderation of marks grace marks

Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors.

· Rohinton Fali Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a resolution plan prevails over matching liquidation value, and a successful Resolution Applicant cannot withdraw from the process except as prescribed by law.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Resolution Plan Liquidation Value Committee of Creditors

Dhansai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

· A. M. Khanwilkar

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether service as a daily-wager prior to regularization qualifies for gratuity under government service rules, holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 does not apply to employees governed by specific pension rules.

labor other Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 daily-wager service regularization Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976

Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka

· R. F. Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotion under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the prohibition on reservation in promotion under Indra Sawhney does not apply to them.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant reservation in promotion persons with disabilities horizontal reservation Article 16(1)

Narayan Yadav Thr.Lrs. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

· L. Nageswara Rao; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that under Section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, an application to set aside a sale must be accompanied by the prescribed deposit within thirty days, and failure to do so invalidates the application, with no power to extend the time.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 28 Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 application to set aside sale mandatory deposit time limit

Padma Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

· Indira Banerjee; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash an FIR under the Gangsters Act, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed offences warranting investigation.

criminal appeal_dismissed quashing of FIR Article 226 Gangsters Act definition of gang and gangster

Brahma Singh v. Union of India

· Deepak Gupta; L. Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court held that service rendered by employees of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee prior to the 2000 Rules must be counted as qualifying service for pension and retiral benefits.

administrative petition_allowed Significant qualifying service pension retiral benefits Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

Dilip Shaw v. The State of West Bengal

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose · 2020 INSC 240

The Supreme Court modified convictions from murder under Part I to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304 IPC, affirming liability of unlawful assembly members for death caused by bomb assault and upholding the reliability of dying declaration.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 304 IPC Section 149 IPC dying declaration common object

Dilip Shaw v. The State of West Bengal

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC with Section 149, upholding the reliability of dying declaration and common object doctrine in a bomb assault case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration common object unlawful assembly Section 304 IPC

Dhanpal v. State NCT of Delhi

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of appellants involved in a collective assault causing death, affirming the application of common intention despite minor discrepancies and delay in FIR registration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant common intention Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC eyewitness testimony

Dhanpal v. State NCT of Delhi

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld murder convictions under Section 302/34 IPC based on common intention and reliable eyewitness testimony despite minor discrepancies and delay in FIR registration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant common intention Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC eyewitness testimony

FICUS PAX PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

· Ashok Bhushan; Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 425

The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's temporary power under the Disaster Management Act to direct wage payments during COVID-19 lockdown but emphasized balancing employers' and employees' interests through negotiation and restrained coercive action pending final adjudication.

constitutional other Significant Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 10(2)(l) payment of wages COVID-19 lockdown

FICUS PAX PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

· Ashok Bhushan; Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court recognized the Central Government's authority under the Disaster Management Act to issue wage payment directions during COVID-19 lockdown but emphasized balancing employers' and employees' interests through negotiation, noting the orders were withdrawn and directing no coercive action meanwhile.

constitutional other Significant Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 10(2)(l) wages during lockdown Article 14

Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

· Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court dismissed writ petitions seeking appointment as Sub-Inspectors on parity with candidates exempted from the Physical test, holding that such exemption was a special order under Article 142 and not a precedent.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Article 142 of Constitution of India Article 32 of Constitution of India Sub-Inspector appointment Physical test exemption

Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh

· N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court directed the premature release on probation of kidnapping convicts after finding the State's rejection orders unreasoned and contrary to statutory mandates under the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938.

criminal petition_allowed Significant premature release probation kidnapping for ransom UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938

Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh

· N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Hrishikesh Roy
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 20 NDPS Act, ruling that investigation by complainant does not imply bias and non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal if due efforts are made.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 NDPS complainant as investigating officer bias in investigation