Supreme Court of India
14,826 judgments
Haribhau v. The State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the appellant's jail sentence already served and enhancing the fine, upholding the conviction under IPC Sections 353, 294, and 504 read with Section 34.
Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court upheld acquittals for murder due to lack of causal link but enhanced sentences for police officers convicted of causing hurt to extort information, emphasizing stringent punishment for custodial torture.
Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court upheld convictions for custodial torture causing hurt but acquitted the accused of murder due to lack of causal link, while enhancing the sentence to ensure deterrence against police excesses.
Kailash Singh v. The Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that wrongful termination of employees in a private unaided educational institution without statutory compliance entitles them to compensation but not reinstatement, and enhanced the awarded damages accordingly.
Kailash Singh v. The Managing Committee, Mayo College, Ajmer & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that wrongful termination of employees in a private unaided educational institution without mandatory statutory consent entitles them to compensation but not reinstatement, and enhanced the compensation awarded.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others
The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded to the claimants in a motor accident death claim, affirming the insurer's liability and the correct application of legal principles under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik
The Supreme Court held that legal representatives of a deceased owner-cum-driver who caused his own death by negligent driving cannot claim compensation beyond the personal accident cover under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others
The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, confirming insurer's liability to pay just and reasonable compensation with interest in a fatal accident claim.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik
The Supreme Court held that legal representatives of a deceased owner-driver who caused his own accident cannot claim compensation from the insurer under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, except for limited personal accident cover.
Anil Kumar v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim suffering permanent disability due to the insurer's liability under a comprehensive policy, correcting the inadequacy of the original award.
Anil Kumar v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim suffering partial permanent disability, holding that the initial award was inadequate and the insurer liable under a comprehensive policy.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are territorially confined to the lists specified in Presidential Orders for each State or Union Territory and cannot be extended to migrants from other States or UTs without parliamentary amendment.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are territorially confined to the lists notified by the President for each State or Union Territory and cannot be extended to migrants beyond those lists without parliamentary amendment.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are territorially confined to the State or Union Territory specified in the Presidential Orders and cannot be extended to migrants beyond those lists without parliamentary legislation.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are territorially confined to those specified in Presidential Orders for each State or Union Territory and cannot be extended to migrants without parliamentary amendment.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are territorially confined to the States or Union Territories as specified in Presidential Orders, and migrants cannot claim such benefits in other States or UTs unless Parliament amends the lists.
State of Karnataka v. Prakash & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of accused for illegal sandalwood transportation due to mandatory procedural non-compliance under Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act invalidating the prosecution's evidence.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board
The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are territorially confined to the State or Union Territory specified in the Presidential Orders and can only be amended by Parliament, denying migrants entitlement to such benefits in other States or Union Territories.
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of accused in a murder case due to reasonable doubts arising from inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and absence of corroborative physical evidence.
State of Karnataka v. Prakash & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of accused for transporting sandalwood due to prosecution's failure to prove mandatory authorization of the certifying forest officer under Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act.