Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath

22 Feb 2016 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel · 2016 INSC 1163

The Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere with ongoing election processes and that election disputes must be referred to the Central Government under the Dentists Act, setting aside the High Court's order allowing such interference.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant election interference Dentists Act 1948 Dental Council election Section 5 Dentists Act

Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath

22 Feb 2016 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere with the election process once commenced and election disputes under the Dentists Act must be referred to the Central Government, setting aside the High Court's order allowing a candidate's nomination after election commencement.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant election process judicial interference Dentists Act 1948 Dental Council election

Satyendra Singh v. Saroj Rani

22 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the appellant's review application within one month and stay contempt proceedings pending its disposal, emphasizing fairness and expeditious adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Procedural review application contempt proceedings High Court pendency

Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. v. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Anr.

22 Feb 2016 · V. Gopala Gowda; Amitava Roy

The Supreme Court held that a compromise decree protecting shopkeepers' possession became inexecutable due to subsequent development plans and statutory regulations, affirming the municipal authority's power to remove unauthorized structures in public interest while upholding compensation rights.

property appeal_dismissed Significant compromise decree inexecutability development plan planning authority

Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath

22 Feb 2016 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere with election processes once commenced and that election disputes under the Dentists Act must be referred to the Central Government, setting aside the High Court's order allowing a candidate's nomination after election commencement.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant election interference Dentists Act 1948 Dental Council election Section 5 Dentists Act

SUBHASH v. GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL GOVT.OF NCT DELHI

19 Feb 2016 · KURIAN JOSEPH; ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

The Supreme Court directed the respondent Hospital to give preference to appellants in future Class-IV vacancies, ignoring age bar, without deciding their direct employment status.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Class-IV employees regularization preference in employment contractor employees

Kathuria Public Schools & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Feb 2016 · Anil R. Dave; Shiva Kirti Singh; Adarsh Kumar Goel
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of land acquisition by the Delhi Development Authority, dismissed the appellants' challenge, and directed possession and management of the acquired land and school premises to be handed over to the government.

property appeal_dismissed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 possession undertaking to vacate Delhi Development Authority

Surinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

18 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the fixation of land value at Rs. 250 per square yard as consistent with earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant land valuation fixation of land value High Court Supreme Court

A.K. Saxena v. State Bank of Patiala

18 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court modified the dismissal of an employee involved in alleged fraud by treating him as retired with pension benefits, emphasizing non-discrimination and fairness in disciplinary proceedings.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry dismissal from service fraudulent withdrawal Labour Court Award

M/S JAGRAON EXPORTS v. C.I.T-I LUDHIANA

18 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that proceeds from the sale of scrap are not includible in total turnover for claiming deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax appeal_allowed Significant sale of scrap total turnover Section 80HHC Income Tax Act, 1961

Ashok Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana

18 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that under the amended Land Acquisition Act, courts must award just and fair compensation based on true market value, not limited by the owner's claim, and fixed the appellants' land value at Rs. 200 per square yard considering its location.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 25 amendment just and fair compensation market value

Chidambaram v. Spl. Tahsildar Land Acquisition & Ors

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that land acquired under notification dated 22.05.1991 is entitled to compensation at Rs. 20 per square foot with statutory benefits, aligning with its earlier ruling in Valliyammal's case.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition land valuation compensation statutory benefits

Om Parkash & Ors. v. State of Haryana

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court allowed the appellants' appeal and directed compensation for acquired land at Rs. 250 per sq. yard, aligning it with precedent valuations for adjoining lands.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation market value Section 4(1) Notification

Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's summary dismissal of a review petition concerning land acquisition and directed it to consider the appellant's substantive grounds and pass a speaking order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant review petition speaking order land acquisition discrimination plea

Rajendra Kumar Tekriwal v. M/S Unique Constrn. P. Ltd. & Ors.

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, vacated the interim order, and directed the Arbitrator to decide all disputes including party joinder and valuation issues expeditiously.

civil appeal_dismissed arbitration necessary party interim order vacation of interim order

DHARAMVIR v. STATE OF HARYANA

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed payment of enhanced land acquisition compensation at Rs. 90,000 per acre with statutory benefits, following its earlier precedent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation land value statutory benefits

State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/S. Al Faheem Meetex Private Ltd.

17 Feb 2016 · T.S. Thakur; A.K. Sikri; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Bid Evaluation Committee to rescind its earlier recommendation and annul the tender process due to procedural irregularities before final approval by the Competent Authority.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Public Private Partnership Bid Evaluation Committee Tender process Discretionary power

INDIAN BANK v. M/S NIPPON ENTERPRISES SOUTH

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that a bank successful in SARFAESI proceedings against an owner cannot evict a tenant without following due process under the Rent Control Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant SARFAESI Act tenant eviction Rent Control Act due process

Shobha Singh v. National Thermal Power Corp. & Anr.

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court directed fixation of land compensation at Rs. 480 per decimal with statutory benefits, allowing higher rates if similarly settled with others, ensuring fairness in land acquisition valuation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition land value fixation compensation Collector's award

Ratti Ram v. Union of India

17 Feb 2016 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that statutory interest on enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be paid for the entire period from dispossession, including periods of stay in proceedings caused by the claimant.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 28 interest on enhanced compensation stay of proceedings