Supreme Court of India

16,793 judgments

Year:

Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

06 Nov 2015 · J. Chelameswar; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court held that a candidate with B.Sc. Forestry as a major subject and M.Sc. Forestry satisfies the prescribed qualification for Range Officer Grade-I post and allowed his appeal against rejection on eligibility grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant eligibility qualification B.Sc. Forestry M.Sc. Forestry Jammu & Kashmir Forest Service Recruitment Rules

All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association v. State of Kerala

05 Nov 2015 · H.L. Dattu; R.K. Agrawal; Arun Mishra
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld Kerala's selective prohibition of online lotteries under Section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, affirming the State's competence to regulate online lotteries as a distinct class to protect public interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 Section 5 online lottery paper lottery

HERO CYCLES (P) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

05 Nov 2015 · A. K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that interest on borrowed funds used for advancing money to a subsidiary pursuant to commercial expediency is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, allowing the assessee's claim and setting aside the High Court's disallowance.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 36(1)(iii) Income Tax Act interest deduction commercial expediency borrowed funds

Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana

04 Nov 2015 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 15 NDPS Act based on trustworthy police testimony despite non-examination of investigating officer, reducing sentence from twelve to ten years.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 15 NDPS Section 35 NDPS possession of contraband

VSE Stock Services Ltd. v. S.E.B.I & Anr.

04 Nov 2015 · VikramaJit Sen; Shiva Kirti Singh

The Supreme Court held that voluntary amalgamation of stock broker companies does not attract SEBI's fee continuity benefit, requiring fresh registration fees to be paid.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant fee continuity benefit SEBI Regulations 1992 amalgamation compulsion of law

State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan

04 Nov 2015 · Madan B. Lokur; S.A. Bobde
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Daud Khan for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, rejecting challenges based on FIR delay, inconclusive forensic evidence, and eyewitness reliability.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC FIR delay Section 157 CrPC

UNITECH LTD. & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

04 Nov 2015 · Madan B. Lokur; S. A. Bobde

The Supreme Court held that a collaboration agreement enabling enjoyment of immovable property rights constitutes a 'transfer' under the Income Tax Act, but compulsory pre-emptive purchase orders require proper valuation and an opportunity to rebut tax evasion presumption.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 269UA Section 269UD compulsory pre-emptive purchase

State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Muthukumaraswamy

03 Nov 2015 · Anil R. Dave; S. A. Bobde

The Supreme Court allowed transfer petitions under Article 139-A(1) of the Constitution, transferring multiple writ petitions from the High Court of Madras to itself for adjudication.

constitutional appeal_allowed Article 139-A(1) Constitution of India transfer petition writ petition High Court of Madras

Securities & Exchange Board of India v. M/s. Prebon Yamane (I) Ltd.

03 Nov 2015 · VikramaJit Sen; Shiva Kirti Singh

The Supreme Court held that fee continuity under SEBI Regulations is limited to specific conversions and denied such benefit to a joint venture entity, allowing SEBI's appeal to recover membership fees.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant fee continuity SEBI Regulations 1992 stock broker registration fees segmental surrender

S.E.B.I. v. Alliance Finstock Ltd.

03 Nov 2015 · VikramaJit Sen; Shiva Kirti Singh
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the fee continuity benefit under SEBI Regulations for stock brokers who corporatised before 1 April 1997, ruling that the provision applies retrospectively and SEBI cannot collect fees again for periods already paid.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant fee continuity SEBI Regulations retrospective effect stock brokers

HARI NARAYAN BANSAL v. DADA DEV MANDIR PRABANDHAK SABHA

03 Nov 2015 · ANIL R. DAVE; S.A. BOBDE

The Supreme Court held that framing a substantial question of law is not required when dismissing a second appeal at the admission stage and dismissed the appeal while granting the appellants time to vacate the premises subject to payment of mesne profits.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant second appeal substantial question of law admission stage tenancy

Union of India v. Jivanti Devi

02 Nov 2015 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed a lump sum payment to the respondent in lieu of family pension, recognizing equitable relief where formal pension eligibility was not met.

civil appeal_allowed Significant family pension Central Reserve Police Force service term lump sum compensation

PREM v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

02 Nov 2015 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim to Rs. 6 lakhs due to inadequacy of the original amount and absence of objection from the insurance company.

civil appeal_allowed Motor Accident Compensation Compensation Enhancement Insurance Company Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal

GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

02 Nov 2015 · ANIL R. DAVE; ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of an aged appellant suffering from ailments to one year on compassionate grounds while disposing of the criminal appeal.

criminal sentence_modified sentence reduction age of accused health ailments compassionate grounds

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rinku Singh

02 Nov 2015 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence from the High Court's reduced term to three years imprisonment for firearm injuries, emphasizing appropriate sentencing reflecting the offence's gravity.

criminal appeal_allowed sentence enhancement firearm injuries High Court sentence reduction criminal appeal

Dr. I. Ismail v. K. Shameem Rani

30 Oct 2015 · M. Y. Eqbal; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a removal order against a college principal after a proper inquiry, dismissed the appeal for delay and on merits, and reaffirmed the applicability of Vishaka guidelines and res judicata in service matters.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant removal order sexual harassment Vishaka guidelines inquiry procedure

U. P. Power Corporation Limited v. Vimla Devi

30 Oct 2015 · T. S. Thakur; Kurian Joseph

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by limiting energy charge revision to twelve months based on average subsequent consumption and set aside adverse remarks and costs imposed on officers for procedural irregularities without malafide.

civil appeal_allowed Significant energy charges meter fault short assessment revision of bills

MOHAMMED YASSIN v. RAMIZABI

29 Oct 2015 · Ranjan Gogoi; N. V. Ramana

The Supreme Court held that possession initially permissive does not become adverse by mere passage of time post final decree without evidence of hostility, restoring decrees in favor of the appellant for declaration of title and possession.

civil appeal_allowed Significant adverse possession permissive possession title lease vs license

Poonam v. State of U.P. & Ors.

29 Oct 2015 · Dipak Misra; R. Banumathi
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a subsequent allottee without independent rights is not a necessary party entitled to challenge an appellate order restoring the original allottee's rights, affirming the principle of necessary party impleadment and natural justice in writ proceedings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant necessary party natural justice writ petition fair price shop

Shri Kamal Prashar v. Airport Authority and Another

28 Oct 2015 · Dipak Misra; Uday Umesh Lalit

The Supreme Court held that statutory deputation under the National Airport Authority Act is mandatory and an employee cannot revert to the parent department without formal relief, validating disciplinary action for unauthorized absence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant statutory deputation National Airport Authority Act, 1985 Section 13(3) unauthorized absence