Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

Bhagyan Das v. State of Uttarakhand

11 Mar 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 420 IPC but modified the sentence considering the appellant's age and delay in complaint, while affirming the High Court's refusal to allow compounding due to the offence's societal impact.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC Section 320 CrPC compoundable offence misappropriation

The Electronic Corporation of India Limited v. M. Shivani

08 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra · 2019 INSC 338

The Supreme Court held that employees engaged through outsourcing agencies are not entitled to age relaxation benefits meant for directly employed contract workers and dismissed the respondents' belated challenge to recruitment eligibility.

civil appeal_allowed Significant age relaxation outsourcing agency employer-employee relationship recruitment notification

The Electronic Corporation of India Limited v. M. Shivani

08 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra

The Supreme Court held that employees engaged through outsourcing agencies are not entitled to age relaxation benefits meant for directly employed contract workers and dismissed the respondents' belated challenge to the recruitment notification.

civil appeal_allowed age relaxation outsourcing agency employer-employee relationship recruitment notification

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL

08 Mar 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 337

The Supreme Court held that interest on delayed Commuted Value of Pension is payable only if a timely application under Rule 13(3) is made before retirement and set aside the order directing interest from the date of retirement where no such application was made.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Commuted Value of Pension Provisional Pension Interest on delayed payment Pension Rules

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL

08 Mar 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that interest on delayed Commuted Value of Pension is payable only if a timely application under Rule 13(3) is made before retirement and set aside the Tribunal's order directing interest from the date of retirement where provisional pension was granted and no pending proceedings existed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Commuted Value of Pension Provisional Pension Pension Rules 1972 Rule 9(6)

Rakesh & Ors. v. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.

08 Mar 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that Bhumidhari rights vest retrospectively from the date of deposit under the 1950 Act and that the 1977 Ordinance abated pending proceedings, allowing the sale deed for Plot No. 521 but dismissing claims for Plots 243 and 503.

property appeal_partly_allowed Significant Bhumidhari rights Sirdar tenancy U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Section 134

JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

08 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · 2019 INSC 339

The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order for non-compliance with procedural rules on service of notice, holding that the appellant's right to be heard was violated, and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant audi alteram partem natural justice NCLAT Rules 2016 service of notice

JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

08 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order for non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements, emphasizing the appellant's right to be heard and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant audi alteram partem natural justice service of notice NCLAT Rules 2016

Shoda Devi v. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for medical negligence causing amputation, emphasizing just relief considering the victim's suffering and socio-economic background.

civil appeal_allowed Significant medical negligence compensation consumer protection amputation

Sukumaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court acquitted a forest officer charged with murder, holding that he lawfully exercised his right of private defence amid hostile witnesses and insufficient prosecution evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant right of private defence Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part II IPC hostile witnesses

Sudha Gupta v. DLF Ltd.

07 Mar 2019 · Ranjan Gogoi; L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held forfeiture of earnest money unlawful due to non-production of installment schedule and directed refund with compensation, while dismissing the claim for possession and specific performance under the Competition Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant forfeiture specific performance refund installment plan

Sudha Gupta v. DLF Ltd.

07 Mar 2019 · Ranjan Gogoi; L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's claim for specific performance under the MRTP Act, held forfeiture of earnest money unjustified, and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 30 lakhs with interest, emphasizing the limits of tribunal powers and fairness in forfeiture.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance forfeiture of earnest money refund with interest Competition Act, 2002

M/s Anjaneya Jewellery v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that the Consumer Commission must not dismiss complaints in limine without notice unless the case is appropriate, and remanded the complaint for adjudication on merits.

consumer appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13 amendment dismissal in limine notice to opposite party

Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction challenges must be raised in the written statement and not by an application to revoke leave, remanding the case for fresh adjudication accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant revocation of leave territorial jurisdiction Letters Patent Act, 1865 Clause 12

Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction challenges in civil suits must be raised in the written statement and not by an application for revocation of leave under the Letters Patent Act, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Letters Patent Act, 1865 revocation of leave territorial jurisdiction civil suit

State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Doraiswamy

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. requires only a prima facie case and set aside the High Court's order discharging accused police officers in a corruption case, directing trial to proceed.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge application prima facie case Prevention of Corruption Act

Manik Kutum v. Julie Kutum

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari · 2019 INSC 332

The Supreme Court held that where the facts are clear, the revisional court can directly fix maintenance without remanding the case, and accordingly fixed maintenance for the wife and minor child, modifying the High Court order.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 125 CrPC maintenance wife minor child

Manik Kutum v. Julie Kutum

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that where the legal status of the wife is established and material for maintenance is on record, the court can directly fix maintenance without remanding the case for fresh inquiry.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 125 CrPC maintenance legally wedded wife remand

Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra

The Supreme Court held that the retrospective 2009 amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act includes teachers as employees entitled to gratuity, overruling its earlier decision excluding them.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 2(e) definition of employee Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 retrospective amendment

Birla Institute of Technology v. The State of Jharkhand

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra

The Supreme Court held that the retrospective 2009 amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act includes teachers within the definition of 'employee', entitling them to gratuity, and dismissed the appeal challenging this entitlement.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 employee definition teachers gratuity retrospective amendment