Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors.

· Rohinton Fali Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a resolution plan prevails over matching liquidation value, and a successful Resolution Applicant cannot withdraw from the process except as prescribed by law.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Resolution Plan Liquidation Value Committee of Creditors

Sardar Ali Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

· Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings alleging forgery related to a sale deed pending civil adjudication, holding such criminal prosecution an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of criminal proceedings abuse of process civil dispute pending

Dhansai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

· A. M. Khanwilkar

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether service as a daily-wager prior to regularization qualifies for gratuity under government service rules, holding that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 does not apply to employees governed by specific pension rules.

labor other Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 daily-wager service regularization Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976

Dhansai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

· A. M. Khanwilkar

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether daily-wager service prior to regularization can be counted for gratuity under government service rules excluding the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

labor other Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 daily-wager service regularization Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976

Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka

· R. F. Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotion under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the prohibition on reservation in promotion under Indra Sawhney does not apply to them.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant reservation in promotion persons with disabilities horizontal reservation Article 16(1)

Gelus Ram Sahu v. Surendra Kumar Singh

· S.A. BOBDE; B.R. GAVAI; SURYA KANT

The Supreme Court held that a Ph.D. degree is not mandatory for appointment as Principal under the 2010 AICTE Regulations and that retrospective application of the 2016 AICTE Notification cannot invalidate valid promotions made under alternative criteria.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant AICTE Regulations 2010 Ph.D. qualification Principal appointment Retrospective effect

Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar

· A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld interim custody and visitation arrangements prioritizing the children's welfare, affirmed the binding nature of consent orders unless jointly withdrawn, and allowed parties to seek independent custody proceedings.

family appeal_dismissed Significant custody visitation rights welfare of the child guardianship

Narayan Yadav Thr.Lrs. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

· L. Nageswara Rao; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that under Section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, an application to set aside a sale must be accompanied by the prescribed deposit within thirty days, and failure to do so invalidates the application, with no power to extend the time.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 28 Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 application to set aside sale mandatory deposit time limit

Narayan Yadav Thr.Lrs. v. The State of Bihar

· L. Nageswara Rao; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court held that an application to set aside a certificate sale under Section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 must be accompanied by the mandatory deposit within thirty days, and failure to do so invalidates the application.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 28 Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 certificate sale mandatory deposit time limit

Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

· Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; R. Subhash Reddy

The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's zonal classification for levy sugar price fixation, dismissing claims of discrimination and arbitrariness by the appellant sugar mill.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Essential Commodities Act, 1955 levy sugar price fixation zonal classification arbitrariness

Padma Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

· Indira Banerjee; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash an FIR under the Gangsters Act, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed offences warranting investigation.

criminal appeal_dismissed quashing of FIR Article 226 Gangsters Act definition of gang and gangster

Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL

· R.F. Nariman; Aniruddha Bose; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court upheld enforcement of foreign LCIA arbitral awards against Indian shareholders, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act and emphasizing the finality of foreign awards in India.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant foreign arbitral award enforcement Section 48 Arbitration Act LCIA Rules

Brahma Singh v. Union of India

· Deepak Gupta; L. Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court held that service rendered by employees of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee prior to the 2000 Rules must be counted as qualifying service for pension and retiral benefits.

administrative petition_allowed Significant qualifying service pension retiral benefits Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

Jeetendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

· S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant · 2020 INSC 308

The Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, allowing bail to the appellant despite pending acceptance of closure reports, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in bail matters.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail closure report mechanical rejection prolonged custody

Jeetendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

· S.A. Bobde; B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant

The Supreme Court allowed bail to the appellant, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and bail should not be denied mechanically despite pending acceptance of closure reports.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail closure report mechanical rejection personal liberty

Food Corporation of India v. M/s. V.K. Traders

· S.A. BOBDE; B.R. GAVAI; SURYA KANT

The Supreme Court held that unregistered lease deeds cannot circumvent liability of blacklisted rice millers, dismissing new lessees' claims for paddy allocation without clearing original dues.

civil appeal_allowed Significant lease deed registration blacklisting custom milling Food Corporation of India

Dilip Shaw v. The State of West Bengal

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose · 2020 INSC 240

The Supreme Court modified convictions from murder under Part I to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304 IPC, affirming liability of unlawful assembly members for death caused by bomb assault and upholding the reliability of dying declaration.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 304 IPC Section 149 IPC dying declaration common object

Dilip Shaw v. The State of West Bengal

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC with Section 149, upholding the reliability of dying declaration and common object doctrine in a bomb assault case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration common object unlawful assembly Section 304 IPC

Dhanpal v. State NCT of Delhi

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of appellants involved in a collective assault causing death, affirming the application of common intention despite minor discrepancies and delay in FIR registration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant common intention Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC eyewitness testimony

Dhanpal v. State NCT of Delhi

· Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court upheld murder convictions under Section 302/34 IPC based on common intention and reliable eyewitness testimony despite minor discrepancies and delay in FIR registration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant common intention Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC eyewitness testimony