Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

R. K. Barwal and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh

25 Aug 2017 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the limitation of counting military service for seniority benefits only to ex-servicemen who joined the armed forces during a declared Emergency, dismissing claims by peace-time recruits for similar benefits under the Himachal Pradesh 1972 Rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant ex-servicemen reservation seniority fixation Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel Rules 1972 Articles 14 and 16

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC v. AXIS BANK LIMITED

25 Aug 2017 · A.K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court upheld provisional attachment orders under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act to secure tax liability of FOWC on income earned in India, directing FOWC to deposit amounts received under Letters of Credit to balance contractual obligations and tax recovery.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 281B Provisional attachment Permanent Establishment

Arun Kumar Niranjan v. District Basic Education Officer

25 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court held that amended promotion rules of 2010 cannot be applied retrospectively to penalize a teacher's refusal to accept promotion in 2007 and restored the Single Judge's decision in favor of the appellant.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promotion refusal retrospective application amended rules 2010 penal consequences

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

24 Aug 2017 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; J Chelameswar; S A Bobde; R K Agrawal;... · 2017 INSC 801
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court of India unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, overruling earlier decisions to the contrary.

constitutional landmark Landmark right to privacy Article 21 fundamental rights M P Sharma

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

24 Aug 2017 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; J Chelameswar; S A Bobde; R K Agrawal;...

The Supreme Court referred to a nine-judge bench the question of whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, overruling earlier decisions denying such a right and recognizing privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21.

constitutional other Landmark right to privacy fundamental rights Article 21 personal liberty

Amina Marwa Sabreen A and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

24 Aug 2017 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan · 2017 INSC 805

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Kerala's medical admission policy on maintainability grounds, holding that unpleaded challenges to a Government Order cannot be entertained.

constitutional petition_dismissed Procedural NEET-UG minority educational institutions centralized counselling reservation

Amina Marwa Sabreen A v. State of Kerala

24 Aug 2017 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Kerala's medical admission scheme on maintainability grounds, holding that a challenge to the Government Order was not properly pleaded or prayed for.

constitutional petition_dismissed NEET-UG minority educational institutions centralized counseling Kerala Medical Education Ordinance 2017

Rakesh Kumar Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

24 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal seeking extension of service beyond the prescribed retirement age, holding that continuation in service is subject to State Government discretion and applicable regulations.

administrative appeal_dismissed continuation in service superannuation age service regulations discretionary extension

Rakesh Kumar Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh

24 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal seeking extension of service beyond 58 years, leaving the appellant free to challenge the State Government's refusal to amend service Regulations for Gorakhpur Industrial Development Authority.

administrative appeal_dismissed continuation in service superannuation age State Government policy service Regulations

Ram Chand v. Udai Singh

24 Aug 2017 · R. K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failing to frame a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 100 CPC Second appeal Substantial question of law Inheritance

Ram Chand v. Udai Singh

24 Aug 2017 · R. K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failing to frame a substantial question of law in a second appeal concerning ownership of agricultural land and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 100 CPC second appeal substantial question of law inheritance

Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar & Ors.

24 Aug 2017 · S. A. Bobde; L. Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court held that at the stage of cognizance, a prima facie case must be found before summoning accused, and quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only in exceptional cases, restoring proceedings against respondents in a dowry harassment case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. prima facie case cognizance summoning

Central Reserve Police Force v. Cpl. Sunil Singh and Ors.

23 Aug 2017 · Madan B. Lokur; Deepak Gupta

The Supreme Court held that Air Force personnel who applied for civil posts without prior permission and before completing required service cannot claim seniority from the date of selection, though compassionate relief may be granted.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Air Force service rules prior permission civil employment eligibility seniority fixation

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR

23 Aug 2017 · KURIAN JOSEPH; R. BANUMATHI · 2017 INSC 798

The Supreme Court held that accelerated promotions based on fortuitous postings cannot alter seniority over seniors in the Madhya Pradesh Forest Service and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

civil other Significant seniority fixation accelerated promotion Madhya Pradesh Forest Service inter-se seniority

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR

23 Aug 2017 · KURIAN JOSEPH; R. BANUMATHI

The Supreme Court held that accelerated promotions based on fortuitous postings cannot alter seniority fixed at initial appointment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration due to unclear rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant seniority fixation promotion Forest Service Madhya Pradesh

Kanailal v. Ram Chandra Singh

23 Aug 2017 · R.K. Agrawal; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court held that a second appeal must be decided with reasons addressing substantial questions of law, and set aside the High Court's summary dismissal for non-compliance with procedural mandates.

civil appeal_allowed Significant second appeal Section 100 CPC Order 41 Rule 11 CPC Order 41 Rule 31 CPC

Girish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

23 Aug 2017 · Adarsh Kumar Goel; Uday Umesh Lalit · 2017 INSC 797

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s decision to cite persons as witnesses does not bind the court, which may take cognizance against them after balancing interests, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration excluding their statements as witnesses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 Cr.P.C. Section 306 Cr.P.C. cognizance prosecution discretion

Girish Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

23 Aug 2017 · Adarsh Kumar Goel; Uday Umesh Lalit

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's decision to cite persons as witnesses instead of accused is not binding on the court, which may take cognizance against them in the interest of justice without strictly following Section 306 Cr.P.C., and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 Cr.P.C. Section 306 Cr.P.C. prosecution discretion accomplice evidence

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P. & Ors.

23 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 13(5) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, as amended, mandates accommodating selected candidates in other notified vacancies beyond the same advertisement, allowing the appeals.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Rule 13(5) U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 vacancy allocation service selection

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P.

23 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 13(5) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, as amended, mandates accommodation of selected candidates in available vacancies beyond the scope of the original advertisement, allowing the appeals.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Rule 13(5) U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules vacancy allocation service selection administrative law