Supreme Court of India

15,089 judgments

Year:

Tanuku Taluk Village Officers’ Association v. Tanuku Municipality

12 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh disposal, holding that second appeals must be decided only on properly framed substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Second Appeal Section 100 CPC Substantial Question of Law Tenant Ownership

Tanuku Taluk Village Officers’ Association v. Tanuku Municipality

12 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh disposal, holding that a second appeal must be decided on the substantial questions of law properly framed and not dismissed on unrelated grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Second Appeal Section 100 CPC Substantial Question of Law Tenant Ownership

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. No.6492086A Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh

11 Mar 2019 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta · 2019 INSC 340

The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of an army sepoy for 302 days unauthorized absence, rejecting the Armed Forces Tribunal's order to modulate punishment and grant pension benefits.

military_law appeal_allowed Significant Army Act 1950 unauthorized absence desertion dismissal from service

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. No.6492086A Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh

11 Mar 2019 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta

The Supreme Court upheld dismissal from service for 302 days unauthorized absence by an Army Sepoy, rejecting the Armed Forces Tribunal's order mitigating the punishment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Army Act 1950 unauthorized absence desertion dismissal from service

Savitaben v. State of Gujarat

11 Mar 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy · 2019 INSC 342

The Supreme Court acquitted Savitaben of murder charges due to lack of corroborative evidence and absence of her name in the earliest dying declaration, granting her benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 114 IPC benefit of doubt

Savitaben v. State of Gujarat

11 Mar 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court acquitted Savitaben of murder charges due to lack of corroboration and absence of her name in the earliest dying declaration, granting her benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration benefit of doubt Section 302 IPC Section 452 IPC

M/S ICOMM TELE LTD. v. PUNJAB STATE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD

11 Mar 2019 · R. F. Nariman; Vineet Saran
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court struck down a contractual clause requiring a 10% deposit before invoking arbitration as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, emphasizing that such financial barriers hinder arbitration as an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration clause deposit-at-call Article 14 arbitrariness

M/S ICOMM TELE LTD. v. PUNJAB STATE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD

11 Mar 2019 · R. F. Nariman; Vineet Saran
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court struck down a contractual clause requiring a 10% deposit before arbitration as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, emphasizing that such financial barriers impede the arbitration process.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration clause deposit-at-call Article 14 arbitrariness

Bhagyan Das v. State of Uttarakhand

11 Mar 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 420 IPC but modified the sentence considering the appellant's age and delay in complaint, while affirming the High Court's refusal to allow compounding due to the offence's societal impact.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC Section 320 CrPC compoundable offence misappropriation

The Electronic Corporation of India Limited v. M. Shivani

08 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra · 2019 INSC 338

The Supreme Court held that employees engaged through outsourcing agencies are not entitled to age relaxation benefits meant for directly employed contract workers and dismissed the respondents' belated challenge to recruitment eligibility.

civil appeal_allowed Significant age relaxation outsourcing agency employer-employee relationship recruitment notification

The Electronic Corporation of India Limited v. M. Shivani

08 Mar 2019 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra

The Supreme Court held that employees engaged through outsourcing agencies are not entitled to age relaxation benefits meant for directly employed contract workers and dismissed the respondents' belated challenge to the recruitment notification.

civil appeal_allowed age relaxation outsourcing agency employer-employee relationship recruitment notification

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL

08 Mar 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 337

The Supreme Court held that interest on delayed Commuted Value of Pension is payable only if a timely application under Rule 13(3) is made before retirement and set aside the order directing interest from the date of retirement where no such application was made.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Commuted Value of Pension Provisional Pension Interest on delayed payment Pension Rules

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL

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

The Supreme Court held that interest on delayed Commuted Value of Pension is payable only if a timely application under Rule 13(3) is made before retirement and set aside the Tribunal's order directing interest from the date of retirement where provisional pension was granted and no pending proceedings existed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Commuted Value of Pension Provisional Pension Pension Rules 1972 Rule 9(6)

Rakesh & Ors. v. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.

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

The Supreme Court held that Bhumidhari rights vest retrospectively from the date of deposit under the 1950 Act and that the 1977 Ordinance abated pending proceedings, allowing the sale deed for Plot No. 521 but dismissing claims for Plots 243 and 503.

property appeal_partly_allowed Significant Bhumidhari rights Sirdar tenancy U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 Section 134

JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

08 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · 2019 INSC 339

The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order for non-compliance with procedural rules on service of notice, holding that the appellant's right to be heard was violated, and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant audi alteram partem natural justice NCLAT Rules 2016 service of notice

JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

08 Mar 2019 · N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order for non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements, emphasizing the appellant's right to be heard and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant audi alteram partem natural justice service of notice NCLAT Rules 2016

Shoda Devi v. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for medical negligence causing amputation, emphasizing just relief considering the victim's suffering and socio-economic background.

civil appeal_allowed Significant medical negligence compensation consumer protection amputation

Sukumaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

07 Mar 2019 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court acquitted a forest officer charged with murder, holding that he lawfully exercised his right of private defence amid hostile witnesses and insufficient prosecution evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant right of private defence Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part II IPC hostile witnesses

Sudha Gupta v. DLF Ltd.

07 Mar 2019 · Ranjan Gogoi; L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court held forfeiture of earnest money unlawful due to non-production of installment schedule and directed refund with compensation, while dismissing the claim for possession and specific performance under the Competition Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant forfeiture specific performance refund installment plan

Sudha Gupta v. DLF Ltd.

07 Mar 2019 · Ranjan Gogoi; L. Nageswara Rao; Sanjiv Khanna

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's claim for specific performance under the MRTP Act, held forfeiture of earnest money unjustified, and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 30 lakhs with interest, emphasizing the limits of tribunal powers and fairness in forfeiture.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance forfeiture of earnest money refund with interest Competition Act, 2002