Supreme Court of India
14,826 judgments
National Kamgar Union v. Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the factory employed fewer than 100 workers, rendering the closure lawful under the Industrial Disputes Act, and directed compensation for workers who did not accept prior payments.
National Kamgar Union v. Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the employer employed fewer than 100 workers, rendering closure lawful without Chapter VB compliance, and directed compensation for workers who did not accept prior settlements.
Leena Vivek Masal v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging interim summons issued under the SC/ST Act, holding that such interim orders are not ordinarily interfered with when the complaint is pending and the accused have full opportunity to contest on merits.
SUSME BUILDERS PVT. LTD. v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY
The Supreme Court upheld the removal of Susme as developer for failure to obtain mandatory 70% consent of slum dwellers and unexplained delay, affirming the SRA's power under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Act.
SUSME BUILDERS PVT. LTD. v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY
The Supreme Court upheld the SRA's removal of Susme as developer for failure to obtain mandatory 70% slum dweller consent and delay, dismissing Susme's appeal and emphasizing the mandatory nature of consent under the Slum Act and DCR.
q, fudyk fd og vk/k v. okil ugha vk;kA vkf[kjdkj
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under IPC and MCOCA, affirming that procedural compliance and a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence suffice for conviction in organised crime cases.
0991312a147da3b014891bd89e5d73cdc9ec196eff4a1c3a7753ea8f69e45107
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction based on electronic evidence due to non-compliance with mandatory certification under Section 65C(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing strict procedural safeguards for admissibility.
Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court held that after charges are framed and cognizance taken, further investigation cannot be directed by the Magistrate on complainant's request, restoring the Trial Court's rejection of such investigation and ordering expeditious trial.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld its authority to enforce the Master Plan by sealing unauthorized commercial use of residential premises in Delhi, allowing conditional de-sealing and direct appeals to the Monitoring Committee to uphold the rule of law and environmental protection.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld the illegality of unauthorized commercial use of residential premises in Delhi, affirmed sealing as a remedy, struck down legislative attempts to override judicial orders, and streamlined appeals through the Monitoring Committee to enforce the Master Plan and protect citizens' rights.
Vijendra Kumar & Ors. v. The Commissioner, A.P. Charitable & Religious Institutions & Endowment Department & Anr.
The Supreme Court remanded the dispute over whether a temple is private or public to the competent authority for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the presumption of validity of official endowment entries and the need for evidence-based determination.
Vijendra Kumar & Ors. v. The Commissioner, A.P. Charitable & Religious Institutions & Endowment Department & Anr.
The Supreme Court remanded the dispute over whether a temple is a private family shrine or a public endowment for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the rebuttable presumption of validity of official endowment entries and the need for procedural compliance.
Macquarie Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that the certificate under Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is directory and that a lawyer authorized by the operational creditor can issue a valid demand notice under Section 8, thereby allowing the appeals and setting aside the dismissal of insolvency applications on these grounds.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.R. SAINI
The Supreme Court held that no separate show-cause notice is required before imposing removal from service if the delinquent employee has already been given an opportunity to respond to the inquiry report.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.R. SAINI
The Supreme Court held that no separate show-cause notice is required before imposing a major penalty if the delinquent employee has already been given an opportunity to respond to the inquiry report.
Dinesh Kumar J v. National Insurance Co. Ltd
The Supreme Court held that contributory negligence cannot be inferred solely from the absence of a driving licence without evidence of rash or negligent driving, and enhanced the appellant's compensation accordingly.
Dinesh Kumar J v. National Insurance Co. Ltd
The Supreme Court held that contributory negligence cannot be inferred merely from non-production of a driving licence without evidence of rash or negligent driving, and enhanced the motor accident compensation accordingly.
Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed strict compliance with statutory reservation, accessibility, and pedagogical provisions for persons with disabilities in educational institutions, mandating monitoring and implementation frameworks under the Disabilities Act, 2016.
Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed strict compliance with statutory reservation and accessibility provisions for persons with disabilities in educational institutions, mandating monitoring, rule-making, and implementation of inclusive education measures.