Supreme Court of India

8,182 judgments

Year:

Rina Rani Mallick v. Susim Kanti Mohanty & Anr.

30 Apr 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; K. Vinod Chandran · 2025 INSC 602
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking further enhancement of compensation for a minor child's 55% permanent disability from a motor vehicle accident, holding the High Court's award adequate and in line with established legal principles.

civil petition_dismissed Significant motor vehicle accident compensation permanent disability minor child

Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

30 Apr 2025 · J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 599
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court directed regulatory authorities to make digital KYC processes accessible and inclusive for persons with disabilities, ensuring reasonable accommodations in compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Digital KYC Persons with Disabilities Accessibility Reasonable Accommodation

SMT. M. SABITHA & ORS. v. BRAHMA SWAMULU & ANR.

30 Apr 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; K. Vinod Chandran · 2025 INSC 601
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that contributory negligence in a fatal motor accident should be equally apportioned between both drivers and enhanced compensation including loss of consortium must be awarded to the dependents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant contributory negligence motor accident claim compensation calculation loss of consortium

ARATHY RAMACHANDRAN v. BIJAY RAJ MENON

29 Apr 2025 · Vikram Nath; Sanjay Karol; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 587
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court modified the interim custody arrangement, prioritizing the children's welfare over equal parental custody, and set aside the High Court's 15-day custody order for the father.

family appeal_allowed Significant child custody welfare of the child interim custody Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Renuka v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

29 Apr 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 596
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings supported by medical and witness evidence cannot be quashed by conducting a mini trial at the quashing stage and restored the case against the respondent-husband for assault and cruelty under IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of criminal proceedings Section 498-A IPC inherent jurisdiction mini trial

VISA COKE LIMITED v. M/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

29 Apr 2025 · J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 597
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that service of a Section 8 demand notice on the Key Managerial Personnel at the corporate debtor's registered office constitutes valid service enabling initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 8 demand notice Section 9 petition Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan

29 Apr 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 606

The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot reject a plaint under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, which is limited and cannot usurp the trial court's original jurisdiction governed by the Civil Procedure Code.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India supervisory jurisdiction rejection of plaint Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi

29 Apr 2025 · Dipankar Datta; Manmohan · 2025 INSC 582

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the quashing of FIR against respondents for cheating and forgery, holding that prima facie cognizable offences were disclosed and investigation must proceed.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC misrepresentation cheating

Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Rajasthan Textile Mills Association and Anr.

29 Apr 2025 · Abhay S. Oka; Augustine George Masih · 2025 INSC 592

The Supreme Court held that Cross-Subsidy Surcharge can be validly determined separately from tariff determination based on prevailing tariff rates, restoring the State Commission's order and setting aside the APTEL judgment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Cross-Subsidy Surcharge Electricity Act 2003 Open Access Tariff Determination

Shardhamma & Anr. v. The Dy. Commissioner

29 Apr 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 583

The Supreme Court held that applications under Section 5 of the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable time, dismissed a delayed claim for restoration of land, upheld the validity of a sale deed made after the non-alienation period, and ruled that only legal representatives of the original grantee have locus standi.

property appeal_allowed Significant Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 Section 5 application delay and laches non-alienation clause

SRI MALAKAPPA & ORS. v. THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

29 Apr 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; K. Vinod Chandran · 2025 INSC 590
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court modified the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by recognizing partial dependency of the husband, applying a 40% addition for future prospects, and awarding loss of consortium to children, thereby ensuring just compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim dependency future prospects loss of consortium

Amarveer Kaur and Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.

29 Apr 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; K. Vinod Chandran · 2025 INSC 589

The Supreme Court held the insurer liable to pay enhanced compensation for motor accident death despite invalid driver’s license, allowing recovery from the vehicle owner and awarding loss of consortium to spouse, children, and parents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim insurance liability fake driving license loss of consortium

Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

29 Apr 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Manoj Misra · 2025 INSC 593
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of pecuniary jurisdiction provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, based on consideration paid, rejecting claims of arbitrariness and discrimination under Article 14.

consumer_protection petition_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 2019 pecuniary jurisdiction consideration paid compensation claimed

S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India

29 Apr 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 594

The Supreme Court held that contractual service must be counted for pension benefits under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules upon regularisation, directing the Union of India to grant pension accordingly.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant contractual service pensionary benefits regularisation Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

State of U.P. & Another v. Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.

29 Apr 2025 · J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 747

The Supreme Court upheld reforms to prevent seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling, modified excessive compensation awarded to candidates, and issued directions to ensure transparent, merit-based medical admissions.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant NEET-PG counselling seat blocking medical admissions merit-based selection

Filomena Saldanha v. Sunil Kohli

29 Apr 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Joymalya Bagchi · 2025 INSC 595

The Supreme Court held that applications to clarify court orders must be confined to correcting clerical errors and parties must be given a fair hearing, setting aside the High Court's orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Application for Speaking to the Minutes clarification of court order Goa Panchayat Raj Act delay condonation

SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA v. SANTOSH KUMAR

29 Apr 2025 · Dipankar Datta; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 586

The Supreme Court held that a discrepancy in caste category in TET and recruitment documents without evidence of manipulation or undue advantage does not invalidate a candidate's appointment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant appointment caste certificate TET examination Backward Class

KAMAL DEV PRASAD v. MAHESH FORGE

29 Apr 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; K. Vinod Chandran · 2025 INSC 591

The Supreme Court held that disability compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act must consider cumulative functional loss from multiple injuries, allowing 50% disability and enhanced compensation over the High Court’s 34% assessment.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 disability assessment loss of earning capacity functional disability

P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors.

29 Apr 2025 · J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 598
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that limitation issues involving date of knowledge are mixed questions of fact and law that cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, restoring the suit for trial.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC limitation Article 59 Limitation Act Power of Attorney

K. P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

28 Apr 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 576

The Supreme Court upheld convictions in a caste-based honour killing case, clarifying the evidentiary value of hostile and interested witnesses, affirming wide judicial discretion under Section 311 CrPC, and commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant hostile witness Section 311 CrPC interested witness SC/ST Act