Supreme Court of India

15,089 judgments

Year:

P. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu

29 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld convictions for abduction and assault, ruling that explained delay in FIR and consistent victim testimony suffice for conviction despite acquittal of some accused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant abduction delay in FIR Section 365 IPC Section 352 IPC

Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

29 Mar 2019 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction based on distinct FIRs, complete circumstantial evidence, and admissible expert identification through superimposition, dismissing the appellants' challenges.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant second FIR circumstantial evidence superimposition test last seen circumstance

Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

29 Mar 2019 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction based on distinct FIRs, cogent circumstantial evidence, and admissible expert identification through superimposition, dismissing the appellants' challenges.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen circumstance superimposition test second FIR

Amrika Bai v. The State of Chhattisgarh

29 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Indira Banerjee · 2019 INSC 416

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to inconsistent prosecution evidence and procedural lapses, emphasizing that mere presence in an unlawful assembly without proof of common object is insufficient for conviction.

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

Amrika Bai v. The State of Chhattisgarh

29 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of proof of common object in an unlawful assembly charge under Sections 302 read with 149 and 147 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 149 IPC Section 147 IPC unlawful assembly

P. Surendran v. State by Inspector of Police

29 Mar 2019 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shatanagoudar · 2019 INSC 435
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the High Court Registry cannot refuse to number an anticipatory bail petition under the SC/ST Act on maintainability grounds, as such determination is a judicial function to be decided by the appropriate bench.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail SC/ST Act Section 18A High Court Registry

P. Surendran v. State by Inspector of Police

29 Mar 2019 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shatanagoudar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the High Court Registry cannot refuse to number an anticipatory bail petition under the SC/ST Act on maintainability grounds, as such judicial determination lies exclusively with the Court.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail SC/ST Act Section 18A High Court Registry

Kali Prasad Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

28 Mar 2019 · Arun Mishra; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC based on reliable solitary eye witness testimony and corroborative evidence, dismissing claims of ante-timed FIR and identification doubts.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC solitary eye witness FIR ante-timing identification at night

Rajendra Tiwari v. Kedar Nath

28 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari · 2019 INSC 414

The Supreme Court set aside a default decree passed without giving the defendant an opportunity to file written statement and evidence, and remanded the suit for fresh trial on merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant default decree written statement opportunity to defend natural justice

Susanta Dey v. Babli Majumdar

28 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that a High Court in criminal revision can only examine the legality of an appellate remand order and directed the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits, setting aside the High Court's order reinstating conviction and sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act criminal revision appellate remand jurisdictional error

Kali Prasad Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

28 Mar 2019 · Arun Mishra; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction based on reliable solitary eyewitness testimony corroborated by other evidence, rejecting claims of ante-timed FIR and identification doubts.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC solitary eyewitness FIR ante-timing identification at night

Chand Kaur v. Mehar Kaur

28 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari · 2019 INSC 413

The Supreme Court remanded property dispute second appeals to the High Court for fresh disposal after mandating the framing of substantial question(s) of law as required under Section 100 CPC, holding that failure to do so is a jurisdictional error.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 100 CPC second appeal substantial question of law jurisdictional error

Chand Kaur v. Mehar Kaur

28 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court held that the High Court must frame substantial question(s) of law under Section 100 CPC before deciding second appeals, and remanded the case for fresh disposal accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 100 CPC second appeal substantial question of law jurisdictional error

Rajendra Tiwari v. Kedar Nath

28 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court set aside an ex parte eviction decree due to denial of opportunity to the defendant and remanded the suit for fresh trial ensuring fair hearing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant civil suit written statement opportunity to be heard ex parte decree

Rajinder Tiwari v. Kedar Nath

28 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the civil suit for fresh trial, emphasizing the defendant's right to file a written statement and ensuring a fair opportunity to contest the suit on merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant written statement permanent injunction fair trial civil suit

Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi and Another

27 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Abhay Manohar Sapre
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that arrest and detention pursuant to an investigation extension and valid judicial remand orders are lawful, setting aside the Delhi High Court's interim bail granted on grounds of expired investigation period.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Serious Fraud Investigation Office Companies Act 2013 Section 212 investigation period

K. Marappan v. The Superintending Engineer T.B.P.H.L.C

27 Mar 2019 · Ranjan Gogoi; Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K.M. Joseph

The Supreme Court upheld the bar on compensation claims arising from delays under Clause 59 of the contract, set aside certain arbitration awards, but allowed the claim for extra lead with modified quantum.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 Clause 59 Contractual delay Compensation claims

K. Marappan v. The Superintending Engineer T.B.P.H.L.C

27 Mar 2019 · Ranjan Gogoi; Sanjay Kishan Kaul; K.M. Joseph

The Supreme Court held that claims for compensation barred by a contractual clause prohibiting claims for delays or hindrances cannot be sustained, partially upheld the arbitration award on extra lead subject to contractual rates, and set aside other claims unsupported by evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 Clause 59 contract Compensation claims Delay and hindrance

गंभीर धोखाधड़ी जााँच कार्ाालर् v. राहुल मोदी & Ors.

27 Mar 2019 · अभर् मनोहर सप्रे; उदर् उमेश लचलत
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Court held that arrests made after expiry of the statutory investigation period without valid extension are illegal, upheld the High Court's interim bail order, and emphasized strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Companies Act, 2013.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Companies Act, 2013 Serious Fraud Investigation Office Investigation extension Illegal arrest

Bajaj Auto Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

27 Mar 2019 · L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjay Kishan Kaul · 2019 INSC 407
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that exemption from excise duty under a notification also exempts the manufacturer from paying NCCD and related cesses, as these duties are excise duties or surcharges dependent on the excise duty liability.

tax appeal_allowed Significant National Calamity Contingent Duty Education Cess Secondary & Higher Education Cess Central Excise Duty exemption