Supreme Court of India
14,826 judgments
Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of the written statement, emphasizing that merits of the amendment cannot be examined under Article 227 jurisdiction.
Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of the written statement, affirming that amendments should be liberally allowed and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. SHASHI PRABHA SHUKLA
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting fresh dealership to a cancelled allottee, emphasizing strict compliance with judicial directions and principles of administrative fairness in public contract allotments.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla
The Supreme Court set aside the grant of fresh dealership to a cancelled allottee, holding that public authorities must comply with judicial directions and exercise discretion fairly and transparently in distributing State largesse.
HALAPPA v. MALIK SAB
The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was a lawful passenger injured due to negligent driving, enhanced compensation for his permanent disability, and held the insurer liable despite the High Court's contrary finding based solely on the FIR.
Union of India v. Pfizer Limited
The Supreme Court held that prior consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board is not mandatory under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, allowing the Central Government to ban drugs based on relevant material without such consultation.
Union of India v. Pfizer Limited
The Supreme Court held that prior consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board is not a mandatory precondition for the Central Government to exercise powers under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to ban or regulate drugs in the public interest.
Harpal Singh v. Ashok Kumar & Anr
The Supreme Court held that a decree for possession over land that has ceased to be agricultural and become urbanized is not barred by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, and the executing court rightly dismissed objections based on jurisdictional bar.
Harpal Singh v. Ashok Kumar & Anr
The Supreme Court held that urbanized land ceases to be agricultural land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, allowing civil courts jurisdiction to pass decrees under the Specific Relief Act, and upheld execution of such decrees absent inherent jurisdictional defects.
Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of anticipatory bail for lack of reasons and remanded the case for fresh consideration in accordance with established legal principles.
A.V.G.V. Ramu v. A.S.R. Bharathi
The Supreme Court allowed the husband's appeal and granted divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, exercising its powers under Article 142, despite the respondent's non-appearance and denial of consent in lower courts.
A.V.G.V. Ramu v. A.S.R. Bharathi
The Supreme Court allowed a mutual consent divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by invoking Article 142, despite the respondent's non-appearance and alleged withdrawal of consent.
Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court held that superior courts cannot direct subordinate courts to grant bail by mandamus and emphasized the necessity of complainant's participation in revision petitions challenging orders passed on their application.
M/s Sam Built Well Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Builders
The Supreme Court held that judicial review of technical tender evaluations is limited and restored the appellant's eligibility and tender award after finding the High Court Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction without evidence of mala fide or perversity.
M/s Sam Built Well Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Builders
The Supreme Court held that judicial review of technical eligibility in tenders is limited and restored the appellant's eligibility and tender award after setting aside the High Court Division Bench's contrary decision.
Joseph v. State
The Supreme Court held that conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC requires proof of common object or knowledge of likely offence, and modified convictions accordingly, acquitting some accused of murder while confirming others' liability based on individual roles.
Joseph v. State
The Supreme Court held that conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC requires proof of common object or knowledge of likelihood of murder among all accused, modifying convictions accordingly and acquitting several accused of murder charges.
LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DANKUNI STEELS LIMITED
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acceptance of a bid below reserve price in a court-directed auction of Metallurgical Coke and ordered a fresh valuation and auction to ensure maximum price realization.
The State of Jharkhand v. M/s Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that when it retains seisin over arbitration proceedings and directs the award to be filed before it, it alone has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain applications to make the award Rule of the Court, without extinguishing the parties' right of appeal.
State of Jharkhand & Ors v. M/s Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that when it retains control over arbitration proceedings, it alone has jurisdiction to entertain applications for making the arbitral award a Rule of the Court, and the right of appeal is not extinguished but subsumed within its jurisdiction.