Supreme Court of India

15,089 judgments

Year:

Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau

07 May 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 639

The Supreme Court held that courts may impose punishment higher than the minimum under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act by considering relevant factors beyond those enumerated in Section 32B, and reduced the appellant's sentence from sixteen to twelve years.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(c) Section 32B minimum punishment

Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau

07 May 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that courts may impose punishment higher than the minimum under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act by considering relevant factors beyond those enumerated in Section 32B, and reduced the appellant's sentence from sixteen to twelve years.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(c) Section 32B minimum punishment

Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that delay caused by pursuing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can be condoned to protect the statutory right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex-parte decree, emphasizing a liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.

civil appeal_allowed Significant ex-parte decree Order IX Rule 13 CPC Section 96(2) CPC condonation of delay

Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More & Ors.

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that time spent pursuing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can constitute sufficient cause to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex-parte decree, allowing consecutive remedies and restoring the appeal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant ex-parte decree Order IX Rule 13 CPC Section 96(2) CPC condonation of delay

Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court held that a clerical error in a vakalatnama does not constitute forgery or fraud on the court, quashing the FIR registered for alleged forgery and setting aside the High Court's direction to lodge a complaint.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail vakalatnama forgery Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court held that a clerical error in a vakalatnama does not amount to forgery or fraud on the court, quashing the FIR and complaint lodged on that basis and allowing the appeals.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail vakalatnama forgery Section 340 Cr.P.C.

R.S. Sohane v. State of Madhya Pradesh

07 May 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M.R. Shah · 2019 INSC 638

The Supreme Court held that teachers in private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years as per the statutory amendment by the Coordination Committee, overruling the High Court's contrary view.

labor appeal_allowed Significant age of superannuation private aided colleges Coordination Committee Statute No.28

DR. R.S. SOHANE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

07 May 2019 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; M.R. SHAH

The Supreme Court held that teachers in private aided colleges in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years as per the binding amendment to Statute No.28 by the Coordination Committee, directing the State Government to extend corresponding pay and service benefits.

labor appeal_allowed Significant age of superannuation private aided colleges Coordination Committee Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973

Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; S. Abdul Nazeer · 2019 INSC 634

Supreme Court set aside murder conviction due to doubtful identification, contradictory evidence, and lack of conclusive ballistic proof, granting benefit of doubt to accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant benefit of doubt identification in darkness ballistic evidence recovery of weapons

Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant due to insufficient and contradictory evidence failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a firearm murder case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant benefit of doubt identification at night ballistic evidence weapon recovery

Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat

07 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for murder and related offences due to doubtful identification and contradictory evidence, granting him benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Identification evidence Benefit of doubt Concurrent findings Recovery of weapons

Director Transport Department Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Silvassa & Ors. v. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel

07 May 2019 · L. NAGESWARA RAO; M.R. SHAH
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the right of a migrant Scheduled Tribe resident in Dadra and Nagar Haveli to claim reservation benefits and appointment to a reserved public post, dismissing the appeal restricting reservation to domiciled locals.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Scheduled Tribe reservation Union Territory Dadra and Nagar Haveli residence vs domicile Presidential Notification Articles 341 and 342

Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil v. Tamilarasi By LRs.

07 May 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 100 CPC and remanded the second appeal for fresh adjudication after proper framing of substantial questions of law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 100 CPC Second appeal Substantial question of law High Court jurisdiction

Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil v. Tamilarasi By LRs.

07 May 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 100 CPC and remanded the second appeal for fresh adjudication after proper framing of substantial question(s) of law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 100 CPC Second appeal Substantial question of law High Court jurisdiction

Central Bureau of Investigation v. P. A. Subbu

07 May 2019 · Naveen Sinha · 2019 INSC 644

The Supreme Court held that procedural delays in sanction applications under the Prevention of Corruption Act do not bar prosecution if substantive evidence exists, allowing the appeal and directing grant of sanction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant sanction for prosecution Prevention of Corruption Act Section 17 PCA Section 242 CrPC

Central Bureau of Investigation v. M. Subrahmanyam

07 May 2019 · Arun Mishra; Navin Sinha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to bring a delayed authorisation order on record in a corruption case, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 173 Cr.P.C. Section 242 Cr.P.C. authorisation order

Inspector of Police v. P. M. Subrahmanyam

07 May 2019 · Naveen Sinha

The Supreme Court held that procedural delays in filing sanction orders under Section 173(2)(5)(a) CrPC are directory and do not bar prosecution in corruption cases, allowing the appeal and directing further investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 173(2)(5)(a) CrPC sanction orders delay in prosecution Prevention of Corruption Act

Central Bureau of Investigation v. M. Subrahmanyam

07 May 2019 · Arun Mishra; Navin Sinha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to bring on record a delayed authorisation order for investigation in a corruption case, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural lapses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 17 authorisation Section 173 Cr.P.C. Section 242 Cr.P.C.

Hemareddi v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani

07 May 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K.M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that a joint appeal abates as a whole on the death of one appellant without substitution of legal representatives when the decree is joint and inseparable, dismissing the appeal to avoid conflicting decrees.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant abatement of appeal Order XXII Rule 3 CPC joint and inseparable decree substitution of legal representatives

Hemareddi v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani

07 May 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K.M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that the appeal abated as a whole on the death of one appellant without substitution of legal representatives because the decree was joint and inseverable, and allowed the High Court's dismissal of the appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant abatement of appeal Order XXII Rule 3 CPC joint and inseverable decree legal representatives substitution