Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

ITC LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

12 Sep 2025 · J.B. PARDIWALA; R. MAHADEVAN · 2025 INSC 1111
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that search and seizure under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 must comply with Cr.P.C. safeguards including prior recording of reasons and presence of independent witnesses, and quashed the seizure conducted without such compliance.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Legal Metrology Act, 2009 search and seizure Section 15 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

M.S. PATTER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

12 Sep 2025 · J.B. PARDIWALA; R. MAHADEVAN · 2025 INSC 1115
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional duty of the State to ensure humane conditions and rehabilitation in beggars’ homes under Article 21, directing accountability and systemic reforms following a cholera outbreak and deaths at a Delhi institution.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 21 Beggars’ Homes Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 Public Interest Litigation

Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises

12 Sep 2025 · Manoj Misra; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2025 INSC 1108

The Supreme Court held that post-bid rectification of financial bids altering the BOQ is impermissible and set aside the High Court's order allowing such correction, emphasizing sanctity of tender process and natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant tender process financial bid rectification Bill of Quantity (BOQ) judicial review

Unknown v. M/S RAHUL INDUSTRIES AND ORS

12 Sep 2025 · J.B. PARDIWALA; R. MAHADEVAN · 2025 INSC 1103
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that the appellant lacked authority to impose a 20% price hike on coal for non-core linked consumers without following prescribed procedures, rendering the Interim Coal Policy arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and ordered refund of excess amounts collected.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Interim Coal Policy price fixation Article 14 Article 39(b)

SHIVAMMA v. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

12 Sep 2025 · J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 1104
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court clarified that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be shown for the entire period from the start of limitation until actual filing, and condonation of delay is a discretionary remedy not to be granted for mere negligence.

civil other Significant Section 5 Limitation Act condonation of delay sufficient cause within such period

RASIKLAL SHETH v. KIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL

12 Sep 2025 · PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; JOYMALYA BAGCHI · 2025 INSC 1109

The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim cannot be filed solely against a co-defendant nor after the framing of issues, setting aside the High Court’s order permitting such a counter-claim in a property dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant counter-claim Order VIII Rule 6A CPC co-defendant specific performance

Reena Banerjee and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

12 Sep 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1101

The Supreme Court mandated comprehensive monitoring and enforcement of disability rights across India, emphasizing dignity, accessibility, and community integration for persons with disabilities in state-run institutions.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant disability rights Persons with Disabilities Act Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act institutionalisation

Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal & Anr.

11 Sep 2025 · J.K. MAHESHWARI; K. VINOD CHANDRAN · 2025 INSC 1099
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court allowed eviction and recovery of rent based on a probated Will establishing ownership and bona fide need, overruling lower courts' adverse concurrent findings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant eviction bona fide need probated Will landlord-tenant relationship

Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. State of Maharashtra

11 Sep 2025 · Sanjay Kumar; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 1100
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that police must mandatorily register FIRs upon receiving information of cognizable offences and directed a special investigation into police inaction during communal riots, allowing the appellant's appeal.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 154 CrPC FIR registration cognizable offence dereliction of duty

Akhtar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand

10 Sep 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sanjay Karol; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1097
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and death sentence of the accused in a child sexual assault and murder case, emphasizing the sufficiency of circumstantial and DNA evidence despite investigative lapses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory DNA evidence POCSO Act

Govindappa Gounder @ Govindasamy v. K. Vijayakumar

10 Sep 2025 · J. B. Pardiwala; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1134

The Supreme Court held that eviction of cultivating tenants under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 requires cogent evidence of destructive acts, and set aside eviction orders lacking such proof.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 Section 3(2)(b) cultivating tenant eviction

Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

10 Sep 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 1096
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against an educational institution for allegedly using a forged fire NOC, holding that no inducement or essential ingredient of cheating was established as the fire NOC was not required for buildings below 15 metres.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC cheating forgery no-objection certificate

Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors

10 Sep 2025 · Pankaj Mithal; Prasanna B. Varale · 2025 INSC 1095

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction to register FIRs and investigate CBI officers for prima facie cognizable offences, emphasizing mandatory FIR registration under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and rejecting immunity claims by public servants.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant FIR registration cognizable offence preliminary inquiry Section 154 Cr.P.C.

Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah

09 Sep 2025 · J.K. Maheshwari; Vijay Bishnoi · 2025 INSC 1088
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that a disciplinary authority's finding of misconduct and compulsory retirement punishment cannot be set aside by a tribunal or court through reappreciation of evidence, affirming the limits of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry compulsory retirement industrial disputes act judicial review

Siddharth v. State of Madhya Pradesh

09 Sep 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1082

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks against an advocate made by the High Court for a bona fide omission, emphasizing protection of professional reputation absent intent to mislead.

civil appeal_allowed Significant adverse observations professional impropriety expunction advocate conduct

Union of India v. Sajib Roy

09 Sep 2025 · Surya Kant; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 1084
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court held that reserved candidates who availed age relaxation cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies if barred by recruitment rules or government instructions, overruling the High Court's contrary decision based on Jitendra Kumar Singh.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reservation age relaxation migration to unreserved category office memorandum 01.07.1998

Geeta v. State of Karnataka

09 Sep 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; K. V. Viswanathan · 2025 INSC 1089

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, holding that mere quarrels and insults without intent and overt acts do not constitute abetment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant abetment of suicide Section 306 IPC SC/ST Act mens rea

Union of India v. Alok Kumar

09 Sep 2025 · J.K. Maheshwari; Vijay Bishnoi · 2025 INSC 1091

The Supreme Court upheld termination of a trainee SSE for failing prescribed training examinations, affirming that successful completion of training and passing the qualifying test are mandatory for permanent appointment under the Master Circular.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Railway Recruitment Board Senior Section Engineer Group C posts Master Circular No.29/1991

Railway Protection Force v. Prem Chand Kumar

09 Sep 2025 · Surya Kant; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 1083
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that reserved candidates availing age or physical measurement relaxations are barred from appointment against unreserved vacancies if recruitment rules impose such embargo, but relaxation in physical standards like height does not bar selection against unreserved posts if merit cut-offs are met.

administrative appeal_allowed (Railway Protection Force case), appeal_dismissed (CISF case) Significant reserved category candidates migration to unreserved vacancies age relaxation physical standards relaxation

H.S. Puttashankara v. Yashodamma

09 Sep 2025 · J.K. Maheshwari; Vijay Bishnoi · 2025 INSC 1087

The Supreme Court held that rent receipts constitute prima facie evidence of landlord-tenant relationship under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and eviction proceedings cannot be stayed on disputed title issues which must be decided by civil courts.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 Section 43 landlord-tenant relationship rent receipts