Supreme Court of India
15,092 judgments
V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that grant of Essentiality Certificate and Consent of Affiliation for medical colleges is a quasi-judicial function requiring strict compliance with infrastructure and procedural norms, and dismissed the appellant's plea for relief for the academic year 2020-2021 due to deficiencies and missed deadlines.
Omanakkuttan & Ors. v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence and compensation awarded to appellant No. 3 for offences under Sections 308 and 326 IPC, considering the facts and period already served.
Omanakkuttan & Ors. v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence and compensation awarded to appellant No. 3 for offences under Sections 308 and 326 IPC, considering the facts and appellant's circumstances.
RUSODAY SECURITIES LTD v. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD
The Supreme Court upheld the expulsion of a trading member for violating exposure limits and failing to maintain deposits, affirming the validity of operational circulars under the Exchange's Byelaws without requiring prior SEBI approval.
RUSODAY SECURITIES LTD v. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of NSE's circular prescribing operational parameters and the consequent expulsion of a trading member for violation of gross exposure limits and failure to maintain required deposits.
Venkatesan Balasubramaniyan v. The Intelligence Officer
The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of default bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. where a combined charge sheet was filed within 180 days before another court, emphasizing that non-communication of such filing does not entitle accused to default bail.
Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of a husband for strangulation of his wife based on credible solitary witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the burden on accused to explain death occurring in their exclusive custody.
M/S KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PVT. LTD. v. M/S AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD.
The Supreme Court held that a financial creditor party to winding up proceedings can seek transfer of such proceedings from the High Court to the NCLT under the fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, irrespective of the stage of service under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
M/s Caledovina Jute and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Excess Vinman and Industries Ltd. & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that only parties to winding-up proceedings before the Company Court can seek transfer to the NCLT under Section 434(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013, and directed transfer of pending proceedings to the NCLT for insolvency resolution under the IBC, 2016.
M/S KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PVT. LTD. v. M/S AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD.
The Supreme Court held that any party to winding up proceedings pending before a High Court, including financial creditors, can seek transfer of such proceedings to the NCLT under the fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, overriding procedural restrictions, to uphold the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Udayant Malhoutra
The Supreme Court upheld the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s setting aside of SEBI’s ex parte interim order for lack of urgency but clarified SEBI’s statutory powers to pass such orders remain intact subject to extreme urgency.
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Udayant Malhoutra
The Supreme Court upheld the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s setting aside of SEBI’s ex parte interim order on insider trading, holding such orders require extreme urgency and cannot mandate advance disgorgement without adjudication.
7a6931e39b56f86e3dba3d1105ce7458882c42124df02254cfea464538925303
The Supreme Court held that contractual teachers appointed before 2010 with valid qualifications cannot be denied regularization based on post-2010 norms, while upholding the State's authority to prescribe minimum qualifications and conduct eligibility tests for future appointments.
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य v. आ न्द कु मार यादव
The Supreme Court upheld the regularization of para-teachers in Uttar Pradesh subject to prescribed qualifications and recognized the State's authority to grant necessary exemptions under the RTE Act and service rules.
Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P.
The Supreme Court held that Shiksha Mitras cannot be regularized as teachers without prescribed statutory qualifications but must be given opportunities to compete in recruitment with age relaxation and experience weightage.
Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
The court held that OBC women candidates scoring above the general women category cut-off must be considered for recruitment against general women posts, directing the State to comply with reservation principles and court orders.
Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
The Supreme Court held that CBI's investigation without prior State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is not invalid if post-facto consent is granted and no prejudice is shown, dismissing appeals challenging the investigation while remitting other issues for trial court decision.
M/S Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
The Supreme Court held that absence of prior State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act does not vitiate CBI investigation if post-facto consent is granted and no prejudice is shown, upholding prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Inder Pal Singh v. Nirmal Gill
The Supreme Court held that the 1990 General Power of Attorney and sale deeds were validly executed and not forged, restoring the trial and first appellate courts' dismissal of the plaintiff's fraud claims and setting aside the High Court's reversal.
Kirpa Ram v. Surendra Deo Gaur
The Supreme Court upheld the Civil Court's jurisdiction to try a suit for permanent injunction over disputed land, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law and rejecting claims of jurisdictional bar under the Delhi Land Revenue Act.