Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

Vasant Rao Guhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh

09 Aug 2017 · Dipak Misra; Amitava Roy; A. M. Khanwilkar · 2017 INSC 718
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted a public servant accused of possessing disproportionate assets, holding that prosecution must prove such possession beyond reasonable doubt without speculative calculations or altering charges.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(e) disproportionate assets burden of proof

Vasant Rao Guhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh

09 Aug 2017 · Dipak Misra; Amitava Roy; A. M. Khanwilkar

The Supreme Court acquitted a public servant convicted for disproportionate assets, holding that prosecution must prove such assets beyond reasonable doubt and conviction cannot rest on speculative recalculations not part of the original charge.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(e) disproportionate assets burden of proof

Vithal Tukaram Kadam and Another v. Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale and Others

09 Aug 2017 · L. Nageswara Rao; Navin Sinha

The Supreme Court held that a deed styled as a sale but containing a reconveyance clause and evidencing a debtor-creditor relationship is a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mortgage by conditional sale sale with option to repurchase Transfer of Property Act 1882 Section 58(c)

BOARD OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING (SR) AND ANR v. M. ANBUMANI AND ORS

09 Aug 2017 · KURIAN JOSEPH; R. BANUMATHI

The Supreme Court upheld pension benefits granted by the High Court to a person who did not opt for pension within the prescribed time, exercising its power under Article 142 on peculiar facts, but clarified the order is not a precedent.

civil appeal_dismissed pension entitlement option for pension Article 142 Constitution of India peculiar facts

Suhas Ramchandra Apte v. Vasantrao Shankarrao Bhosle

09 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court disposed of a civil appeal concerning the misapplication of Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, directing the High Court to review and correct the error regarding territorial applicability.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural Bombay Rent Act, 1947 Section 11(3) error apparent on face of record territorial applicability

Suhas Ramchandra Apte v. Vasantrao Shankarrao Bhosle

09 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court disposed of a civil appeal with liberty to file a review application before the High Court to correct the application of an incorrect statutory provision under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.

civil appeal_dismissed Bombay Rent Act, 1947 Section 11(3) error apparent on face of record review application

Dilipkumar v. State of Maharashtra

09 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi · 2017 INSC 728

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot direct recovery of civil appeal costs while deciding a criminal anticipatory bail application and set aside such an order.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. costs recovery collateral issue

Dilipkumar v. State of Maharashtra

09 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot order recovery of costs awarded in a separate civil appeal while deciding an anticipatory bail application and set aside such an order.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. costs recovery jurisdiction

ANIL HARIKISAN NAVANDAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

09 Aug 2017 · KURIAN JOSEPH; R. BANUMATHI

The Supreme Court disposed of anticipatory bail appeals directing the Trial Court to consider bail applications afresh upon filing of the final report, proceeding uninfluenced by High Court observations.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. final report Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh

09 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court held that video conferencing is not an adequate substitute for physical presence in sensitive family law matters and directed reconsideration of prior directions on this issue by a larger Bench.

family other Significant Family Courts Act, 1984 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 video conferencing matrimonial disputes

Praveer Kumar Principal Secretary Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of U.P. v. Reena Kumari

08 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court held that in contempt proceedings, the explanation of the alleged contemnor must be considered before compelling personal appearance, setting aside the High Court's premature order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant contempt of court preferential appointment principle of natural justice personal appearance

P. D. Goel v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh

08 Aug 2017 · J. Chelameswar; S. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court held that only the Governor can retire a judicial officer and retrospective retirement orders are impermissible, entitling the appellant to service benefits until lawful retirement at age 60.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Judicial Service Retirement age High Court disciplinary control Governor appointing authority

Sheela Goyal & Ors. v. Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh & Ors.

04 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against cancellation of booth allotment, directing the appellant to file a fresh representation undertaking personal operation and maintaining status quo pending its consideration.

civil appeal_allowed allotment cancellation booth allotment conditions of allotment sub-letting

U. Manjunath Rao v. U. Chandrashekar

04 Aug 2017 · Dipak Misra; A. M. Khanwilkar
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court must provide a reasoned judgment applying its mind to all issues and set aside the High Court's unreasoned dismissal of the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant first appeal Section 96 CPC Order XLI Rule 31 CPC reasoned judgment

State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava

04 Aug 2017 · A.K. Sikri; R.K. Agrawal · 2017 INSC 709

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of charges against a public official due to lack of prima facie evidence and ambiguous intercepted calls failing to prove conspiracy or illegal gratification.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charge prima facie case Prevention of Corruption Act illegal gratification

State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava

04 Aug 2017 · A. K. Sikri; R. K. Agrawal

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of charges against a public servant for lack of prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the charge framing stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charge prima facie case Prevention of Corruption Act illegal gratification

RAMA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

04 Aug 2017 · KURIAN JOSEPH; R. BANUMATHI · 2017 INSC 712

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's maintenance order and remitted the matter for amicable settlement and completion of divorce formalities, considering the appellant's age and health.

family appeal_allowed maintenance alimony matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

RAMA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

04 Aug 2017 · KURIAN JOSEPH; R. BANUMATHI

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's maintenance order and remitted the matter for settlement and divorce formalities, considering the appellant's health and willingness to pay a lump sum.

family appeal_allowed maintenance alimony matrimonial dispute one-time settlement

M.P. Housing Board v. Purushottam Lal

04 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court approved a court-involved settlement fixing Rs. 27.50 crores as full and final compensation for lapsed land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 compensation solatium

M.P. Housing Board v. Purushottam Lal

04 Aug 2017 · Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court approved a court-involved settlement fixing Rs. 27.50 crores as full and final compensation for land acquisition claims that lapsed under the 2013 Act, directing timely payment with interest and personal liability for delay.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 48 solatium