Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

Jangir Singh v. State of Punjab

31 Oct 2018 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that the appellant exceeded his right to private defence without premeditation or intent to cause more harm than necessary.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant right to private defence Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part I IPC disproportionate harm

State of Haryana v. Sunder Pal and Ors.

31 Oct 2018 · R. Banumathi; Indira Banerjee · 2018 INSC 1024

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of several accused in a kidnapping case under Section 364-A IPC due to insufficient evidence linking them to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 364-A IPC kidnapping ransom acquittal

State of Haryana v. Sunder Pal and Ors.

31 Oct 2018 · R. Banumathi; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of accused not directly involved in kidnapping for ransom, emphasizing the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt for each accused under Section 364-A IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 364-A IPC kidnapping for ransom acquittal burden of proof

Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Sheela Ramchandra Tikhe

31 Oct 2018 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan · 2018 INSC 1028

The Supreme Court held that allotment of acquired land pending before enforcement of new statutory rules must comply with those rules, dismissing the claim for re-allotment of surplus land not allotted before the new rules came into force.

property appeal_allowed Significant Nagpur Improvement Trust land acquisition land allotment Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules 1983

Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Sheela Ramchandra Tikhe

31 Oct 2018 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court held that allotment of acquired land pending at the time of new statutory rules must comply with those rules, dismissing the respondent’s claim for re-allotment of surplus land acquired by the Trust.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition re-allotment Nagpur Improvement Trust land disposal rules

Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam

31 Oct 2018 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a murder case due to incomplete circumstantial evidence and failure to consider her defence under Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances and fair trial rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory Section 313 CrPC defence chain of circumstances

Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam

31 Oct 2018 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a murder case due to incomplete circumstantial evidence and failure to consider her defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of an unbroken chain of circumstances and the accused's right to a fair trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 313 CrPC last seen theory

State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina

30 Oct 2018 · R. Banumathi; Indira Banerjee · 2018 INSC 1019

The Supreme Court held that discharge due to invalid prosecution sanction does not invoke double jeopardy, allowing fresh charge sheet filing after valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant prosecution sanction Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 double jeopardy Section 19 PC Act

State of Mizoram v. Dr. C. Sangnghina

30 Oct 2018 · R. Banumathi; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court held that a fresh prosecution sanction and charge sheet after discharge due to invalid sanction is not barred by double jeopardy and directed the trial to proceed.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant prosecution sanction Prevention of Corruption Act double jeopardy Article 20(2) Constitution

Sushila N. Rungta v. The Tax Recovery Officer-16(2)

30 Oct 2018 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha · 2018 INSC 1020

The Supreme Court held that the repeal of the Gold Control Act, 1968 without a saving clause and with a clear contrary intention extinguished pending proceedings and penalties under the Act, setting aside the show cause notice upheld by the High Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Gold Control Act repeal Section 6 General Clauses Act show cause notice simpliciter repeal

Sushila N. Rungta v. The Tax Recovery Officer-16(2)

30 Oct 2018 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court held that repeal of the Gold Control Act, 1968 without a saving clause and with a clear contrary legislative intent extinguished pending proceedings under the Act, rendering the show cause notice invalid.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Gold Control Act, 1968 Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990 Section 6 General Clauses Act Repeal of statute

Star India Private Limited v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion & Ors.

30 Oct 2018 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court upheld TRAI's authority to regulate carriage, pricing, and packaging of broadcast channels under the TRAI Act, distinguishing it from content regulation governed by the Copyright Act.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant TRAI Act jurisdiction broadcasting services regulation content vs carriage regulation Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Regulations 2017

Star India Private Limited v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion & Ors.

30 Oct 2018 · R. F. Nariman; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court upheld TRAI's regulatory powers over pricing and packaging of TV channels under the TRAI Act, distinguishing carriage regulation from content regulation governed by the Copyright Act.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 broadcasting services content regulation carriage

J.S. Luthra Academy & Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others

30 Oct 2018 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court upheld the allotment of land to a private educational institution on welfare grounds but held that free allotment of part of the land was illegal and must be compensated, setting aside the High Court's quashing of the allotment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant land allotment public auction Article 14 natural resources allocation

J.S. Luthra Academy & Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others

30 Oct 2018 · N. V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court upheld the allotment of land to a private educational institution without auction on welfare grounds but directed payment for land allotted free of cost to protect public interest.

property appeal_allowed Significant land allotment educational institution public auction Article 14

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary & Ors.

30 Oct 2018 · R. Banumathi; Indira Banerjee

The Supreme Court reinstated the conviction for gang rape based on credible prosecutrix testimony and medical evidence, and set aside the High Court's acquittal and disparaging remarks against police for lack of procedural fairness.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape Section 376(2)(g) IPC prosecutrix testimony corroboration

State of Kerala v. Rasheed

30 Oct 2018 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra · 2018 INSC 1021
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that deferral of cross-examination under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. is a discretionary exception requiring sufficient reasons, and reversed the High Court's order allowing wholesale deferral without justification.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. deferral of cross-examination judicial discretion criminal trial procedure

State of Kerala v. Rasheed

30 Oct 2018 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that deferral of cross-examination under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power to be exercised only on sufficient reasons, and restored the trial court's order refusing deferral in a murder trial involving politically influential accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. deferral of cross-examination judicial discretion examination-in-chief

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Sharma

30 Oct 2018 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra

The Supreme Court held that in cases of casual workers with short service and long lapse of time, lump sum compensation under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is appropriate instead of reinstatement with back wages.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act Section 11-A casual worker reinstatement

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Sharma

30 Oct 2018 · Abhay Manohar Sapre; Indu Malhotra
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that in cases of casual workers with short service and long lapse of time, lump sum compensation under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is appropriate instead of reinstatement with back wages.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act casual worker reinstatement lump sum compensation