Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram @ Leela Dhar

13 Aug 2008 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah

The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC for a fatal single axe blow to the skull, rejecting the High Court's reduction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC murder culpable homicide

Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain v. State of Gujarat

29 Feb 2008 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC due to lack of evidence proving their common intention and participation in the crime.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention pre-arranged plan

Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

04 Feb 2008 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of Kripal Singh based on reliable ocular and medical evidence despite acquittal of co-accused, emphasizing cautious appraisal of evidence and rejecting rigid application of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC ocular testimony medical evidence recovery of weapon

Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

04 Feb 2008 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of Kripal Singh based on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, rejecting the plea that acquittal of co-accused undermined his guilt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC ocular testimony falsus in uno falsus in omnibus recovery evidence

Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

13 May 2007 · J. B. Pardiwala; Prashant Kumar Mishra
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the murder and harassment convictions of a husband and mother-in-law, applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act to draw adverse inference from the accused’s failure to explain the presence of poison causing the wife’s death.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 498A IPC Section 106 Evidence Act circumstantial evidence

State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu

05 Feb 2007 · Dipak Misra
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld its jurisdiction to hear appeals against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award, directed strict compliance with water release orders, and refused to remit the matter back to the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for final adjudication and maintenance of law and order.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 Cauvery Water Dispute Article 136 Constitution of India Tribunal award

The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. R. Chandramohan

01 Feb 2007 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 0 · Cited by 8

The Supreme Court held that consumer forums cannot entertain complaints involving disputed facts or fraud allegations in summary proceedings and dismissed the complaint for lack of proof of deficiency in banking service.

civil appeal_allowed Significant deficiency in service Consumer Protection Act, 1986 disputed facts summary proceedings

M/s. Balwant Singh & Sons v. National Insurance Company Ltd

28 Nov 2006 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that an insurer is liable to indemnify a transferee who purchased a vehicle at auction and paid the premium, despite non-transfer of registration certificate, as the insurer accepted the risk and the transferee had insurable interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 insurance policy insurable interest transfer of ownership

Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta & Ors.

20 May 2003 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of probate of a Will due to unexplained suspicious circumstances and failure to prove the testatrix's understanding of its contents.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant probate Will execution suspicious circumstances testatrix understanding

Gas Authority of India Limited v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited

08 Feb 2003 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Abhay S. Oka

The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of a writ petition challenging arbitrary transportation loss charges imposed by a State monopoly in a gas supply contract, struck down the impugned clauses as violative of Article 14, and limited refund claims to three years prior to filing.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant writ petition maintainability Article 14 violation unequal bargaining power transportation loss charge

Secundrabad Club v. C.I.T.-V

05 Feb 1998 · B.V. Nagarathna; Prashant Kumar Mishra

The Supreme Court upheld that interest earned by clubs on fixed deposits with banks is taxable income, rejecting exemption under the principle of mutuality and affirming the Bangalore Club judgment.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant principle of mutuality income tax interest income fixed deposits

S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. v. Coal India Ltd.

12 Mar 1997 · Deepak Gupta; Aniruddha Bose

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to preferential linked coal pricing and must pay the Liberalised Sales Scheme price as authorized by government notifications and regulatory resolutions.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant coal linkage liberalised sales scheme coal pricing Colliery Control Order 1945

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

05 Sep 1994 · J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 243
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement of sale does not create a valid mortgage and affirmed the priority of the Central Bank's earlier mortgage over the appellant bank's subsequent mortgage.

civil appeal_allowed Significant equitable mortgage unregistered agreement of sale priority of mortgage Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Jaswant Singh v. Union of India

19 May 1989 · Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held that denial of legal assistance in a Summary Court Martial violates natural justice and set aside the dismissal and imprisonment of the appellant.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Summary Court Martial Rule 129 Army Rules 1954 legal assistance natural justice

Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways

06 Jul 1984 · J. B. Pardiwala; K. V. Viswanathan · 2026 INSC 396
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for prosthetic limbs and loss of future income in a motor accident case, establishing a standardized approach for awarding just and reasonable damages including periodic replacement and maintenance costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant prosthetic limb compensation motor accident claim restitution in integrum loss of future income

Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar & Ors.

27 Nov 1982 · J. B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 274

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of possession taken by the State under the Urban Land Ceiling Act through panchanama and held that procedural irregularities did not invalidate acquisition where statutory requirements were substantially complied with.

property appeal_allowed Significant Urban Land Ceiling Act Section 10(5) notice Section 10(6) order panchanama

Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police

18 Feb 1972 · Ashok Bhushan; Vineet Saran; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for rash driving causing injury but modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine considering the long delay since the offence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 279 IPC Section 337 IPC Section 338 IPC rash driving

Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police

18 Feb 1972 · Ashok Bhushan; Vineet Saran; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for rash driving causing injury but converted the imprisonment sentence into a fine due to the long delay since the offence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 279 IPC Section 337 IPC Section 338 IPC rash driving

ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

06 Feb 1970 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan · 2018 INSC 964

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory time limit under Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 for claiming Input Tax Credit, dismissing challenges to its constitutional validity and denying extension of the claim period.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 Section 19(11) Time limit

ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

06 Feb 1970 · A. K. Sikri; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory time limit under Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 for claiming Input Tax Credit, dismissing constitutional challenges and denying extension of the period by assessing authorities.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 Section 19(11) Time limit