Supreme Court of India

15,089 judgments

Year:

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

HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

03 Feb 1960 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Sub-lessees under a Government lease for agricultural purposes do not acquire independent tenure-holder status under the Ceiling Act without complying with lease conditions, and their land is included in the original lessee's holding for ceiling purposes.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 Government Grants Act, 1895 tenure holder holding

HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

03 Feb 1960 · S. Abdul Nazeer; Krishna Murari

Sub-lessees under a Government lease who fail to comply with lease conditions do not acquire independent tenure holder status under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling Act, and the original Government lessee remains the real holder for ceiling purposes.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 Government Grants Act, 1895 sub-lease tenure holder

Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri v. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department

04 Aug 1959 · R. F. Nariman; S. Ravindra Bhat; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that revenue authorities cannot declare a registered partition deed executed before the cut-off date as sham and ignore it for land ceiling purposes, restoring the rights of daughters under such partition.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 partition deed cut-off date sham partition

Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri v. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department

04 Aug 1959 · R. F. Nariman; S. Ravindra Bhat; V. Ramasubramanian

The Supreme Court held that a registered partition deed executed before the cut-off date under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 cannot be declared sham or ignored by revenue authorities, restoring the rights of daughters under such partition.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 partition deed cut-off date sham partition

Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement

17 Sep 1956 · Bela M. Trivedi; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2023 INSC 1082

The Supreme Court held that informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest orally with contemporaneous acknowledgment satisfies Section 19 of PMLA and upheld the arrest, rejecting retrospective application of the Pankaj Bansal judgment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 19 PMLA grounds of arrest informing arrestee binding precedent

CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DR. KAMALA SELVARAJ

23 Apr 1949 · ARAVIND KUMAR; N.V. ANJARIA · 2025 INSC 1200

The Supreme Court upheld that a property lawfully subdivided before development regulations came into force is exempt from Open Space Reservation charges under the applicable regulations.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Open Space Reservation charges lawful subdivision Development Regulations Annexure XX exemption