Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS

07 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; M.R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that employees reinstated after enhancement of retirement age to 60 years are entitled to benefits as per government policy but not to back wages for the period not worked, dismissing contempt petitions alleging violation of its order.

labor petition_dismissed Significant age of superannuation retirement age Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 Schedules IX and X

Anandrao Ramchandra Salunke v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

07 Mar 2019 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court upheld the insurer's method of computing surrender value by applying an approved factor to the total paid-up value including vested bonus, rejecting the policyholder's claim to the full bonus amount.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant life insurance surrender value Insurance Act 1938 vested bonus

Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh

07 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; M.R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, conferring preferential rights to heirs, applies to agricultural land, affirming the invalidity of transfers without offering such rights.

property appeal_dismissed Landmark Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 22 preferential right agricultural land

Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh

07 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; M.R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to agricultural land, conferring preferential rights on heirs in such property, overruling contrary High Court decisions.

property appeal_dismissed Landmark Section 22 Hindu Succession Act preferential right agricultural land succession

R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeswari v. A.N. Umakanth & Ors.

06 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the transposition of defendants as plaintiffs under CPC provisions to continue a suit after original plaintiffs sought withdrawal, ensuring effective adjudication of substantial questions and preventing multiplicity of proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC Order I Rule 10 CPC transposition of parties

Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh

06 Mar 2019 · Navin Sinha; M. R. Shah · 2019 INSC 324

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants for lack of primary evidence, holding that non-production of seized forest produce and vehicle renders conviction under the Indian Forest Act unsustainable.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Indian Forest Act Section 41 Section 42 Section 379 IPC

Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

06 Mar 2019 · Navin Sinha; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants for failure of prosecution to produce seized wood logs and vehicle, holding that mere sample and seizure memo signatures are insufficient to sustain conviction under the Indian Forest Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Indian Forest Act Section 379 IPC seizure memo production of evidence

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil v. Sandeep Ananda Patil

06 Mar 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M. R. Shah · 2019 INSC 320

The Supreme Court held that a marriage is void under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act if either party has a living spouse at the time of marriage, allowing the appellant's petition for nullity despite limitation under Section 25.

family appeal_allowed Significant Special Marriage Act, 1954 Section 24 Section 25 nullity of marriage

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil v. Sandeep Ananda Patil

06 Mar 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that a marriage is void under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act if a spouse is living at the time of marriage, and such void marriages can be declared nullity at any time without limitation, allowing the appellant's petition for nullity.

family appeal_allowed Significant Special Marriage Act, 1954 Section 24 Section 25 nullity of marriage

KRISHNA NAND SHUKLA v. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION

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

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition and review application for an ad hoc appointment, remanding the matter for fresh consideration based on correct pleadings.

civil remanded Significant writ petition ad hoc appointment pleadings review petition

Shantaben & Ors. v. National Power Transport & Anr.

06 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari · 2019 INSC 323

The Supreme Court held that reasonable addition for future prospects must be made in motor accident compensation claims involving young self-employed deceased, enhancing the award accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim future prospects compensation enhancement loss of dependency

Shantaben & Ors. v. National Power Transport & Anr.

06 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that a 40% addition towards future prospects is mandatory in motor accident compensation for young self-employed deceased, allowing partial enhancement of the award.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim future prospects compensation enhancement self-employed deceased

Urvashi Aggarwal & Anr. v. Kushagr Ansal & Ors.

06 Mar 2019 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the fixed date of performance, and delay with failure to prove readiness and willingness disentitles the plaintiff, while directing enhanced refund of amounts paid.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance limitation period readiness and willingness agreement to sell

Giridhar v. The State of Maharashtra

06 Mar 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that an employee entitled to benefits from the date of first appointment cannot have those benefits restricted due to delay in court approach caused by mandatory grievance procedures.

civil appeal_allowed Significant reservation de-reservation monetary benefits arrears

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.

05 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra · 2019 INSC 314
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share capital transactions, justifying addition of the amount to income.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act share capital premium unexplained cash credits identity of investor

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.

05 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra
Cites 7 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors for share capital, justifying addition of the amount to income.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act share capital premium onus of proof identity of creditors

Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

05 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that recognition of a derecognized Ashram School cannot be transferred arbitrarily, quashed the transfer Resolution, upheld employees' rights to continuous service and salary, and mandated transparent procedures for future transfers.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Ashram School derecognition transfer of recognition Government Resolution

Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

05 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s quashing of a Government Resolution transferring a derecognized Ashram School’s recognition to a distant institution, emphasizing non-transferability of recognition and the need for transparent, policy-compliant transfers.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Ashram School derecognition transfer of recognition Government Resolution

ASIF KHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

05 Mar 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 311
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the accused acted with common intention and premeditation in committing murder.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention premeditation

Asif Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr

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

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that returning with a deadly weapon after a cooling period establishes common intention to commit murder.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention premeditation