Supreme Court of India

15,089 judgments

Year:

Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi

16 Apr 2019 · M. R. Shah; L. Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot suo moto order further investigation after discharging the accused under Section 227 CrPC; such further investigation can only be ordered upon application by the investigating agency under Section 173(8) CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant further investigation Section 173(8) CrPC discharge of accused pre-cognizance stage

Bikash Ranjan Raut v. State

16 Apr 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot order further investigation suo motu after summoning the accused; such power lies with the investigating officer under Section 173(8) CrPC, and quashed the Magistrate's order directing further investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant further investigation Magistrate jurisdiction Section 173(8) CrPC summoning accused

Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi

16 Apr 2019 · M. R. Shah; L. Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot suo moto order further investigation after discharging the accused, and such power lies only with the investigating agency applying under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant further investigation discharge of accused Section 173(8) CrPC Section 227 CrPC

Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal directing the Trial Court to summon and record the evidence of the foreign post-mortem doctor through commission or video-conferencing under Section 311 CrPC to ensure a just decision.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 311 CrPC material witness post-mortem evidence video-conferencing

0a9f06ae3942ea666e3ec5aa77bdaf67638cc21f68c390627e0565f51717e455

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Kdanlesh Mahaleshwari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that courts have wide discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC to summon material witnesses at any stage, including recording evidence via video conferencing or commission, to ensure a just decision in criminal trials.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 311 CrPC summoning witnesses postmortem evidence video conferencing

Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal directing the Trial Court to summon and record evidence of a foreign medical witness through commission or video-conferencing under Section 311 CrPC to ensure a just decision despite trial delay.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 311 CrPC material witness post-mortem evidence video-conferencing

Nisha Singla v. Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.

16 Apr 2019 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta · 2019 INSC 535

The Supreme Court directed an enquiry and ordered possession of a 250 sq. yard plot to a cooperative society member who accepted allotment but was denied possession, emphasizing procedural fairness and estoppel principles.

property appeal_allowed Significant Cooperative Society Plot Allotment Possession Estoppel

Nisha Singla v. Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.

16 Apr 2019 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court directed an enquiry into the appellant's plot allotment and possession rights in a cooperative housing society dispute, emphasizing lawful allotment and possession rights under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Cooperative Society Plot Allotment Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 Possession

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 v. M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd.

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that the High Court must frame substantial questions of law under Section 260-A before admitting and deciding income tax appeals, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication following proper procedure.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 260-A Income Tax Act substantial question of law reopening assessment Section 148 notice

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 v. M/s A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd.

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without framing substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 260-A Income Tax Act substantial question of law reopening assessment Section 148 notice

Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr v. Maslahuddin

16 Apr 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that employees whose pay scales were retrospectively revised and arrears paid fall under the revised classification for retirement age, allowing the Corporation to retire drivers at 58 years instead of 60.

labor appeal_allowed Significant age of superannuation pay scale revision retrospective pay scale Group C classification

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Maslahuddin

16 Apr 2019 · L. Nageshwara Rao; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that drivers initially appointed with pay below Rs. 200 belong to Group 'Gh' with retirement age of 60 years, and subsequent pay revisions do not reduce their retirement age to 58 years.

labor appeal_allowed Significant retirement age pay revision employee classification service regulations

Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr v. Maslahuddin

16 Apr 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that employees whose pay scale was retrospectively revised and accepted fall under the revised classification for retirement age, allowing the Corporation to retire Drivers at 58 years instead of 60.

labor appeal_allowed Significant age of superannuation pay scale revision retrospective pay scale Group C classification

Bal Mukund Sharma @ Balmukund Chaudhry v. The State of Bihar

16 Apr 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court held that only the accused who actually committed murder can be convicted under Section 302 IPC, and others cannot be held liable under Section 149 IPC without proof of common object or knowledge, resulting in partial acquittals and modification of sentences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 149 IPC common object unlawful assembly

Bal Mukund Sharma @ Balmukund Chaudhry v. The State of Bihar

16 Apr 2019 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court held that only the accused who gave the fatal shot can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, acquitting others due to lack of proof of common object.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 149 IPC common object unlawful assembly

Dr RS Grewal & Ors v. Chander Parkash Soni & Anr

16 Apr 2019 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

A life tenant under a will can create a tenancy protected under rent control laws, and such tenancy survives the life tenant's death, precluding a suit for possession treating the tenant as a trespasser.

property appeal_dismissed Significant life interest restricted estate tenancy statutory tenant

Lunawat Construction Company v. Union of India

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court transferred writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Ancient Monuments Act to the High Court of Bombay for merits adjudication and disposed of the petitions accordingly.

constitutional other Procedural constitutional validity Article 32 Ancient Monuments Act transfer of cases

SARV JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI v. UNION OF INDIA

16 Apr 2019 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT's order disposing of a pending application without hearing objections, restoring the appellant's right to pursue remedies in environmental proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant National Green Tribunal Original Application land exchange forest land encroachment

Ranjit Kumar Karmakar @ Dulal Karmakar v. Hari Shankar Das

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that a High Court must decide the substantial questions of law framed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, and failure to do so renders its order unsustainable, warranting remand for fresh hearing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal substantial question of law Section 100 CPC High Court jurisdiction

Ranjit Kumar Karmakar @ Dulal Karmakar v. Hari Shankar Das

16 Apr 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that a second appeal must be decided strictly on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court and remanded the case for fresh hearing after setting aside the impugned order that failed to do so.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal substantial question of law Section 100 CPC High Court jurisdiction