Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jan 2018 · N. V. Ramana; Amitava Roy · 2018 INSC 70

The Supreme Court set aside convictions of two accused due to insufficient evidence while upholding convictions of others based on cogent proof in a murder and unlawful assembly case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant beyond reasonable doubt dying declaration test identification parade unlawful assembly

Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jan 2018 · N. V. Ramana; Amitava Roy

The Supreme Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 for lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt while upholding convictions of others for murder and attempt to murder, emphasizing the necessity of corroborated evidence and the non-fatality of minor contradictions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant proof beyond reasonable doubt dying declaration test identification parade unlawful assembly

Bikash Manna v. State of West Bengal

30 Jan 2018 · Kurian Joseph; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to bond and cooperation with investigation, allowing the complainant to withdraw the monetary deposit made as a bail condition.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. de-facto complainant monetary deposit

Bikash Manna v. State of West Bengal

30 Jan 2018 · Kurian Joseph; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. allowing the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount and imposing conditions of bond and cooperation with investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. de-facto complainant monetary deposit

Shahid Jamal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

30 Jan 2018 · Kurian Joseph; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · 2018 INSC 74

The Supreme Court held that an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed within six months, even without detailed grounds initially, is valid, and allowed the appeal directing expeditious disposal of the reference.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18 application compensation enhancement limitation period

Shahid Jamal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

30 Jan 2018 · Kurian Joseph; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court held that a timely application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed within six months of receiving compensation under protest is valid even if detailed grounds are furnished later, and directed expeditious disposal of the reference.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18 compensation enhancement time bar

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh

30 Jan 2018 · Adarsh Kumar Goel; Uday Umesh Lalit
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that electronic evidence is admissible subject to authenticity, and the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act can be relaxed when the producing party lacks control over the device, emphasizing the integration of videography in investigations.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant electronic evidence videography Section 65B Indian Evidence Act certificate under Section 65B(4)

Shivangouda Ninganagouda Keri v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

29 Jan 2018 · Kurian Joseph; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court granted enhanced land compensation at Rs. 6.5 Lakhs per acre to appellants similarly situated to prior awardees but denied statutory interest for delay.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation land value statutory interest

M/S NEERJA REALTORS PVT LTD v. JANGLU (DEAD) THR. LR

29 Jan 2018 · D. Y. Chandrachud; Dipak Misra; A. M. Khanwilkar · 2018 INSC 67

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's setting aside of an ex parte decree for specific performance due to defective substituted service of summons not complying with mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant substituted service Order V Rule 17 CPC Order V Rule 20 CPC ex parte decree

M/S NEERJA REALTORS PVT LTD v. JANGLU (DEAD) THR. LR

29 Jan 2018 · Dipak Misra; A M Khanwilkar; Dr D Y Chandrachud

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's setting aside of an ex parte decree for specific performance due to defective substituted service of summons not complying with procedural requirements under Order V Rules 17 and 20 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant substituted service Order V Rule 17 CPC Order V Rule 20 CPC ex parte decree

Birbal Prasad Sah v. The State of Bihar

25 Jan 2018 · Kurian Joseph; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant in a drug possession case involving a non-commercial quantity of Ganja, subject to conditions ensuring a fair trial.

criminal appeal_allowed bail non-commercial quantity Ganja criminal trial

MAYA DEVI THROUGH LRs & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

25 Jan 2018 · Ranjan Gogoi; R. Banumathi · 2018 INSC 66

The Supreme Court held that compensation for land acquisition must be based on market value as of the notification date, disallowed post-notification sale deeds as exemplars, and reduced the development charges deduction to one-third, thereby enhancing the compensation awarded.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 23(1) market value compensation enhancement

MAYA DEVI THROUGH LRs & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

25 Jan 2018 · Ranjan Gogoi; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court held that compensation for land acquisition must be based on market value as on the date of notification, disallowed post-notification sales as exemplars, and reduced the development charges deduction to one-third, enhancing compensation accordingly.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation market value post-notification sale

Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das

25 Jan 2018 · R. K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court held that a co-owner is neither a necessary nor proper party in an eviction suit filed by another co-owner against tenants and cannot be impleaded as co-plaintiff without proving necessity.

civil appeal_allowed Significant ejectment suit Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC necessary party proper party

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manoj Sharma

25 Jan 2018 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court held that UGC Regulations 2009 prohibiting M.Phil./Ph.D. through distance education operate prospectively, validating pre-2009 degrees, but eligibility for lecturer posts must comply with NET requirements under the 2009 appointment regulations.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant UGC Regulations 2009 M.Phil. degree distance education prospective operation

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manoj Sharma

25 Jan 2018 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court held that M.Phil. degrees obtained via distance education before 11.07.2009 remain valid, but eligibility for guest lecturer appointments must comply with UGC's 2009 minimum qualification regulations including NET requirements.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant UGC Regulations 2009 M.Phil. degree distance education NET qualification

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana

25 Jan 2018 · R. K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court remanded land acquisition compensation cases for fresh determination of fair market value due to insufficient evidence and improper uniform valuation by the High Court.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation determination fair market value Section 23

Subhash Chander Bansal v. Gian Chand and Ors.

25 Jan 2018 · R. K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 325 IPC and affirmed the sentence of time served plus fine, dismissing the appeal challenging adequacy of punishment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 325 IPC Section 307 IPC grievous hurt conviction

Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

25 Jan 2018 · R. K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2005 licensing order regulating live band music and similar performances in Bangalore restaurants, affirming reasonable restrictions under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) for public safety and morality.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Karnataka Police Act, 1963 Section 31 Live Band Music Public Entertainment

Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

25 Jan 2018 · R.K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2005 licensing order regulating live band music and similar performances in Bangalore restaurants as a reasonable restriction under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Karnataka Police Act, 1963 Section 31 Public Entertainment Live Band Music