Supreme Court of India

15,092 judgments

Year:
Showing 2020 — 1206 judgments found

Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar

30 Jan 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that an unequivocal statement made by a client's counsel in court regarding tenant re-induction is binding on the client, modified the eviction order to ensure fair re-induction and compensation, and dismissed the appellant's attempt to resile from the commitment.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant tenant eviction re-induction lawyer's statement binding fiduciary duty of counsel

U.P. Power Corporation Limited v. Ram Gopal

30 Jan 2020 · S. A. Bobde; B. R. Gavai; S. Ravindra Bhat · 2020 INSC 109
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that reinstatement granted to one candidate due to cancellation of appointment cannot be indiscriminately extended to others not similarly situated, especially where there is delay, and set aside the High Court's order reinstating Ram Gopal.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant reinstatement service law equal treatment delay and laches

U.P. Power Corporation Limited v. Ram Gopal

30 Jan 2020 · S. A. Bobde; B. R. Gavai; Surya Kant
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that reinstatement cannot be granted to a candidate who approaches the court with inordinate delay and without sufficient cause, even if another similarly situated candidate was reinstated earlier under different circumstances.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant reinstatement service termination delay and laches equal treatment

Vaijinath Jadhav v. Afsar Begum

30 Jan 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court held that a statutory certificate of ownership granted to a protected tenant attains finality and cannot be challenged repeatedly, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and preventing abuse of process.

property appeal_allowed Significant statutory tenant Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 Section 38E res judicata

Vaijinath S/o Yeshwanta Jadhav v. Afsar Begum

30 Jan 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court upheld the finality of a statutory tenant certificate under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, rejecting a belated challenge as an abuse of process and reaffirming the doctrine of res judicata.

property appeal_allowed Significant statutory tenant Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 Section 38E res judicata

Chowgule and Company Private Limited v. Goa Foundation

30 Jan 2020 · S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant · 2020 INSC 110

The Supreme Court allowed transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined before March 15, 2018, rejecting the High Court's ban, clarifying that mining operations ceased from March 16, 2018, but transportation of previously mined ore is permitted under statutory and judicial provisions.

environmental / administrative / mining law appeal_allowed Significant mining lease expiry transportation of minerals royalty payment Goa Foundation judgment

Chowgule and Company Private Limited v. Goa Foundation

30 Jan 2020 · S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court allowed transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined before March 15, 2018, overruling the High Court's suspension and clarifying that the mining prohibition did not extend to transporting previously mined ore.

environmental / administrative / mining law appeal_allowed Significant iron ore mining mining lease renewal transportation of minerals royalty payment

Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

30 Jan 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 112

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted with mala fide and ulterior motives in a property dispute, affirming the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings abuse of process mala fide complaint

Ahmad Ali Quraishi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

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

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide and ulterior motives, holding that such abuse of process warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings abuse of process mala fide prosecution

Urmila Devi & Ors. v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

30 Jan 2020 · S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant · 2020 INSC 107

The Supreme Court held that claimants have the right to file and have their cross-objections heard on merits in appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of whether the Insurance Company challenges liability or quantum of compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant cross-objection Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Order XLI Rule 22 CPC

Urmila Devi & Ors. v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

30 Jan 2020 · S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court held that claimants can file maintainable cross-objections in appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of whether the Insurance Company challenges liability or quantum, and such cross-objections must be decided on merits even if the original appeal is dismissed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant cross-objection Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 M.V. Act Order XLI Rule 22 CPC

State of M.P. & Anr. v. M.P. Transport Workers Fedn.

29 Jan 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K.M. Joseph
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002, holding that transferring trial jurisdiction from Labour Courts back to regular criminal courts does not violate the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Labour Courts Criminal Courts Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws Amendment 2002 Article 21

Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another

29 Jan 2020 · M. R. Shah; S. Ravindra Bhat

The Supreme Court clarified that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary remedy without inherent time limits, operative upon arrest, and courts may impose conditions or limit its duration based on case facts, balancing liberty and investigation rights.

criminal other Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. duration of bail judicial discretion

Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another

29 Jan 2020 · M. R. Shah; S. Ravindra Bhat
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court clarified that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary remedy without inherent time limits, which continues until curtailed or cancelled by the court, balancing individual liberty and police investigation rights.

criminal other Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. judicial discretion duration of bail

Mohandas and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

29 Jan 2020 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; K. M. Joseph · 2020 INSC 105
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that reservation of land under a Development Plan does not lapse under Section 127 if a declaration under Section 126(4) is made within ten years, and upheld the continuation of reservation under a revised Development Plan, dismissing the appellants' challenge.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Section 127 Section 126(4) Development Plan

Mohandas and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

29 Jan 2020 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that land reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act does not lapse if a declaration under Section 126(4) is published within ten years, and a revised Development Plan continues the reservation, dismissing the appellants' challenge.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Section 127 Section 126(4) Development Plan

Shripal Bhati & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

29 Jan 2020 · Mohan M. Shanbagoudar; Krishna Murari · 2020 INSC 102

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of respondent no. 4's appointment and inclusion in NOIDA service on deputation basis, dismissing the appellants' challenge to their promotion rights and procedural objections.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant NOIDA Service Regulations 1981 appointment by deputation inclusion in service Uttar Pradesh Inclusion Rules 1984

Shripal Bhati v. State of U.P.

29 Jan 2020 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of deputation appointment and absorption of an employee in NOIDA under the 1981 Service Regulations and held that appellants lacking promotion eligibility had no locus standi to challenge the same.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant deputation appointment absorption NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981 U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976

Shripal Bhati & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

29 Jan 2020 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Krishna Murari

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of deputation appointment and absorption of an employee under NOIDA Service Regulations and statutory absorption rules, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and locus standi of the appellants.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant deputation appointment absorption NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981 U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others

29 Jan 2020 · R. Banumathi; Ashok Bhushan; A.S. Bopanna · 2020 INSC 103

The Supreme Court upheld the President's rejection of the mercy petition of a death-row convict, affirming limited judicial review of mercy petitions and rejecting claims of non-application of mind, solitary confinement, and procedural lapses.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant mercy petition Article 72 Constitution of India death sentence commutation judicial review