Supreme Court of India

18,587 judgments

Year:

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. HARKISHAN

31 Aug 2016 · Kurian Joseph; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal but allowed one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, failing which possession must be returned to the original owners.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 land acquisition Section 24(2) Section 11

M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. v. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

31 Aug 2016 · V. Gopala Gowda; Arun Mishra
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 applies retroactively to payments due after its commencement, allowing recovery of interest on delayed payments irrespective of contract date.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Interest on Delayed Payment Act, 1993 retroactive operation small scale industries statutory interest

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHYAM SINGH

31 Aug 2016 · Kurian Joseph; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, granting it one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, failing which possession must be returned to the original landowners.

property appeal_dismissed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) Section 11

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. AJAY SINGHAL

31 Aug 2016 · Kurian Joseph; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, allowing one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, failing which possession must be returned to original landowners.

property appeal_dismissed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) Section 11

Ashiq Hussain Faktoo v. Union of India

30 Aug 2016 · Ranjan Gogoi; Prafulla C. Pant; A. M. Khanwilkar
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a TADA conviction, holding that post-conviction relief under Article 32 is not maintainable except in rare cases involving violation of natural justice or judicial bias.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Article 32 Constitution of India ex debito justitiae Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 confession admissibility

Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Manoj Kumar & Anr

29 Aug 2016 · A.K. Sikri; R.K. Agrawal

Employees under a contractual Voluntary Retirement Scheme may withdraw their applications before acceptance within the Scheme's validity period, but withdrawal after the Scheme's expiry is impermissible, and an amendment creating a new application window does not extend the original Scheme.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Voluntary Retirement Scheme withdrawal of application invitation to offer contractual scheme

M/S PARK STREET PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD. v. DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

29 Aug 2016 · V. Gopala Gowda; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court held that an unregistered lease agreement cannot override statutory provisions under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and a monthly tenancy created thereby is terminable by 15 days' notice, validating the termination notice issued by the landlord.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 106 Section 107 Registration Act, 1908

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. M/S. THE GENERAL FIBRE DEALERS

29 Aug 2016 · ANIL R. DAVE; L. NAGESWARA RAO

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failure to examine records and give reasons, remanding the matter for a fresh and expeditious hearing.

civil appeal_allowed Procedural High Court First Appeal record and proceedings reasons for judgment

Amandeep Goyal v. Yogesh Rani

29 Aug 2016 · Anil R. Dave; L. Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's transfer of a divorce petition, emphasizing the husband's role as caretaker of a seriously ill child and directing the case to be heard in the original jurisdiction.

family appeal_allowed Significant Divorce Petition Transfer of case Discretion of court Child welfare

Bharwad Navghanbhaj Jakshibhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

29 Aug 2016 · Dipak Misra; Uday Umesh Lalit

The Supreme Court upheld convictions under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC for unlawful assembly causing injuries but modified the sentence by restoring original imprisonment and increasing compensation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly Section 149 IPC Section 326 IPC vicarious liability

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s Addison & Co. Ltd.

29 Aug 2016 · Anil R. Dave; Amitava Roy; L. Nageswara Rao
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that excise duty refund claims are permissible only if the claimant has not passed on the duty burden, and refund to manufacturers who have passed on the duty results in unjust enrichment.

tax appeal_allowed Significant excise duty refund turnover discount passing on of duty Section 11-B Central Excise Act

Laxmi Bai & Ors. v. T. Jagadish & Ors.

29 Aug 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court disposed of a property partition dispute appeal by recording a mediation settlement and rendering pending proceedings infructuous.

civil appeal_allowed mediation settlement partition dispute Supreme Court Mediation Centre

Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India

26 Aug 2016 · Anil R. Dave; V. Gopala Gowda; C. Nagappan
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant initiated beyond the four-year limitation period under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are barred even if prior presidential sanction is obtained, and quashed such proceedings while directing fresh inquiry within six months.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) departmental inquiry limitation period

Jamshed Ansari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.

26 Aug 2016 · A.K. Sikri; N.V. Ramana

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Allahabad High Court Rules requiring advocates not on the local roll to appear with a local advocate, holding these as reasonable restrictions on the right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) and Section 30 of the Advocates Act.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Right to practice law Article 19(1)(g) Reasonable restrictions Advocates Act, 1961

Vivek Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.

26 Aug 2016 · S. A. Bobde; Ashok Bhushan

The Supreme Court held that while reservation for physically handicapped candidates must be implemented as a matter of law, retrospective appointment against backlog reserved posts disrupting seniority is not permissible when the State has complied with reservation norms.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant reservation physically handicapped Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 backlog vacancies

Souren Pal v. Prabhat Bouri

26 Aug 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order unseating appellants without hearing them and remitted the matter for fresh hearing, emphasizing the right to be heard in election disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant election dispute right to be heard natural justice unseating of directors

M/s Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Patna

24 Aug 2016 · Dipak Misra; Prafulla C. Pant
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that exemption from Special Additional Duty on imports from Nepal granted by a 2000 notification operates prospectively and is not retrospective, dismissing the appellant's claim for refund of duty paid earlier.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Special Additional Duty Notification No. 37/96-Customs Notification No. 124/2000-Customs

Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation India Private Limited

24 Aug 2016 · Abhay Manohar Sapre
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement governed by UK law and seated in London is valid despite involving two Indian companies, and the courts must refer disputes to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement governing law assignment novation

State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar

24 Aug 2016 · Dipak Misra; Uday Umesh Lalit
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that recalling prosecution witnesses under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised judicially and refused to allow recall based on inadvertent omissions by defence counsel, emphasizing balance between fair and speedy trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 311 CrPC recall of witnesses fair trial speedy trial

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD v. HAKUMAT RAI

24 Aug 2016 · V. Gopala Gowda; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court held that while the respondent has no absolute right to a shop allotment in Gazipur market, his claim must be considered fairly with other eligible applicants subject to availability.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 allotment of shops category B license notified market area