Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

10 Apr 2014 · Aravind Kumar; N. V. Anjaria · 2025 INSC 1051

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant mother-in-law of dowry harassment charges under Section 498-A IPC due to lack of credible evidence proving cruelty or dowry demand leading to the daughter-in-law's suicide.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498-A IPC dowry harassment cruelty suicide

Jagmohan Yadav v. Postman and Others

06 Aug 2013 · R. Bhanumati; A. S. Bopanna

The Supreme Court held that a candidate not party to the original CAT proceedings challenging postal exam result cancellation cannot claim promotion benefits, and promotions must follow the original tribunal order and merit lists.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promotion postal department Central Administrative Tribunal merit list

eTTw”sêu≤<é eT]j·TT Ç‘·s¡T\T v. m.$.myéT.sêe⁄... Á|ü‹yê~(\T)

25 Apr 2013 · 2018 INSC 1219

The Supreme Court held APSRTC liable for compensation in a motor accident claim, affirming the High Court's power to grant interim relief and directing fair adjudication of compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant APSRTC motor accident claim compensation interim relief

M/S. SHIV STEELS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

17 Dec 2012 · J.B. PARDIWALA; SANDEEP MEHTA · 2025 INSC 1126
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Supreme Court held that reassessments under Section 21 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 are invalid if earlier assessments were time-barred under Section 19, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation provisions in tax law.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 Section 19 limitation Section 21 sanction time-barred assessment

q, fudyk fd og vk/k v. okil ugha vk;kA vkf[kjdkj] l

29 Jul 2012

The court upheld the conviction for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, dismissing the appeal and confirming the sentence under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand

09 Apr 2012 · Aravind Kumar; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1059
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Supreme Court held that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Will do not confer title without a registered sale deed and proper proof, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession and protecting the bona fide purchaser's rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 54 Section 53A Agreement to Sell

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu

08 Oct 2011 · Surya Kant; Hima Kohli
Cites 0 · Cited by 22

The Supreme Court held that the respondent's acts went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, restoring his conviction and sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant attempt to commit rape preparation vs attempt Section 376 IPC Section 511 IPC

Jayaswamy v. State of Karnataka

12 Aug 2011 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; L. Nageswara Rao
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for causing grievous hurt but set aside his murder conviction, emphasizing that appellate courts should not disturb acquittals without substantial and compelling reasons.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant acquittal appellate interference common intention grievous hurt

M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD.

21 Jul 2011 · Abhay S. Oka; Sanjay Karol · 2023 INSC 1059
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that appeals under the Jogighopa Act are not governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, and in absence of prescribed limitation, appeals must be filed within reasonable time, allowing the delayed appeal filed by the appellant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 116 Jogighopa Act, 1990 Commissioner of Payments

M/S. AJAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SATYANARAYAN SOMANI

03 Jun 2011 · JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR; DR D Y CHANDRACHUD

The Supreme Court held that renewal of a public lease is discretionary and must be exercised in public interest with transparency, setting aside a flawed lease renewal and conversion to freehold by UDA in favor of a private developer.

property appeal_allowed Significant lease renewal public land Ujjain Development Authority leasehold rights

Smt Sulekha Rani v. Union of India

28 Mar 2011 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that discharge of an army personnel on medical grounds without an Invalidation Medical Board is illegal and directed grant of family pension treating service as continuing until death.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Invalidation Medical Board Army Rules 1954 medical discharge family pension

Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan v. State of West Bengal

09 Dec 2010 · N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja but reduced the sentence to the period already served considering mitigating factors and the law as it stood at the time of the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 ganja possession conscious possession

M Siddiq Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das

30 Sep 2010 · 2019 INSC 1231

The Supreme Court adjudicated the Ayodhya land dispute by awarding the central dome area to the Hindu deity for temple construction, sharing the inner courtyard between Hindus and Muslims, dismissing Muslim suits on limitation, and directing partition of the disputed property.

civil appeal_allowed Landmark Ayodhya dispute Ram Janmabhumi Babri Masjid juridical personality

M Siddiq Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das

30 Sep 2010

The Supreme Court undertook detailed adjudication of the Ayodhya land dispute involving Hindu and Muslim claims, recognizing juridical personality of the deity, applying limitation law, and directing maintenance of status quo pending final resolution.

civil other Landmark Ayodhya dispute Ram Janmabhumi Babri Masjid juridical personality

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sakru Mahagu Binjewar

14 Jul 2010 · Arun Mishra; Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai; Surya Kant
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld convictions for brutal murders but commuted death sentences to life imprisonment with a minimum 25-year term, reaffirming the 'rarest of rare' doctrine and sentencing principles.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant death penalty rarest of rare life imprisonment commutation of sentence

P. Daivasigamani v. S. Sambandan

15 Jun 2010 · Bela M. Trivedi; Sanjiv Khanna
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, holding that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness within limitation and that time was not the essence of the contract for immovable property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness limitation Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act

Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

31 May 2010 · Abhay S. Oka; Sanjay Karol · 2023 INSC 924
Cites 8 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC due to unreliable dying declarations and insufficient corroborative evidence, emphasizing strict scrutiny of multiple dying declarations and procedural compliance.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC multiple dying declarations reliability of evidence

Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

27 May 2010 · Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose · 2021 INSC 289
Cites 10 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of appellants for murder and grievous hurt, holding that appellate interference with trial acquittal is justified when the trial Court's judgment is perverse and overlooks consistent, corroborated evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 378 CrPC Acquittal Perverse judgment Eyewitness testimony

Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

27 May 2010 · Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 10 · Cited by 12

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of appellants for murder and grievous hurt, affirming that appellate courts may interfere with trial acquittals when based on perverse findings and that exaggerations in witness testimony do not vitiate core truthful evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acquittal conviction Section 378 CrPC presumption of innocence

Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)

19 May 2010 · N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; A.S. Bopanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC but acquitted him of misuse of arms under Section 27 of the Arms Act, reducing his sentence to the period already served.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 307 IPC Section 27 Arms Act attempt to murder intention to kill