Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED

01 Apr 2015 · M.Y. Eqbal; Pinaki Chandra Ghose

The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance involving delivery of possession of immovable property is a suit for land and must be tried by courts having territorial jurisdiction, upholding exclusive jurisdiction clauses and dismissing the Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance suit for land jurisdiction clause SARFAESI Act

Bhupal Singh v. State of Haryana

01 Apr 2015 · VikramaJit Sen; Abhay Manohar Sapre

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, fixing the fair market value at Rs.63 per square yard after applying appropriate deductions, clarifying principles for valuation of large undeveloped agricultural land.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fair market value compensation large undeveloped land

Jeyar Consultant & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

01 Apr 2015 · A. K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act is permissible only on positive profits from export business, and losses in export business preclude such deduction even if overall business shows profit.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 80HHC Income Tax Act 1961 export profits deduction export business losses

Chanderi Devi & Anr v. Jaspal Singh & Ors

31 Mar 2015 · V. Gopala Gowda; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by reasonably estimating the deceased's income and future prospects, awarding Rs.29,17,000/- with interest to the appellants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation loss of dependency future prospects motor accident claim

State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi

30 Mar 2015 · Dipak Misra; Prafulla C. Pant · 2015 (2) SCALE 386
Cites 8 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 304A IPC for rash and negligent driving causing death but modified the sentence to six months imprisonment, emphasizing that compensation alone cannot justify undue leniency in sentencing.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Section 304A IPC rash and negligent driving quantum of sentence compensation

M/S. HOLOSTICK INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

30 Mar 2015 · A. K. Sikri; R. F. Nariman
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that security holograms with printing as their primary use are classifiable under Tariff entry 49.01 as products of the printing industry, overruling classification under self-adhesive plastics entry 39.19.

tax appeal_allowed Significant tariff classification security holograms Central Excise Tariff HSN Explanatory Notes

M/S. OSWAL CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR

30 Mar 2015 · A. K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that a purchaser who paid excise duty has locus standi to claim refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the refund claim was dismissed as time barred for being filed beyond the six-month limitation period.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant refund of excise duty Section 11B Central Excise Act locus standi limitation period

P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi

27 Mar 2015 · J. Chelameswar; Pinaki Chandra Ghose

The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a suit for specific performance due to the Plaintiff-Buyer's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time and mode, rejecting claims of implied extension and condonation of delay.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance conditional decree extension of time deposit of balance consideration

UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT v. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION

27 Mar 2015 · V. Gopala Gowda; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court and High Court decisions directing the regularization of long-serving daily wage safai kamdars as permanent employees, recognizing denial of permanency and equal pay as unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant unfair labour practice permanent employment daily wage workers Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Asha Verman v. Maharaj Singh

27 Mar 2015 · V. Gopala Gowda; C. Nagappan
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by applying Sarla Verma principles for future prospects, awarding medical expenses, and directing 9% interest, setting guidelines for fair compensation distribution among legal heirs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Compensation Loss of dependency Future prospects

Ranbeer Singh v. State of U.P.

27 Mar 2015 · Pinaki Chandra Ghose; Uday Umesh Lalit

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of three accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that their coordinated actions demonstrated common intention despite their acquittal by the High Court.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention child witness

M/S. VIR RUBBER PRODUCTS P. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

27 Mar 2015 · A. K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93, goods bearing another person's brand name must be excluded from turnover calculation, allowing the appellant's claim for exemption on its own branded goods.

tax appeal_allowed Significant SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 brand name trade name

State of U.P v. Charan Singh

26 Mar 2015 · V. Gopala Gowda; R. Banumathi
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the illegality of the respondent's termination under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, ordered reinstatement with back wages, and clarified the applicability of the 'no work no pay' principle and right to livelihood.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant illegal termination back wages industrial dispute Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

T.N. Raghupathy v. High Court of Karnataka

26 Mar 2015 · Anil R. Dave; Kurian Joseph

The Supreme Court corrected a clerical error by deleting the name of a counsel erroneously recorded as appearing in proceedings and judgment.

civil other Procedural appearance slip correction of record clerical error court proceedings

Dhole Govind Sahebrao & others v. Union of India & others

26 Mar 2015 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; S.A. Bobde

The Supreme Court held that amalgamation of distinct cadres does not mandate restoration of original seniority and that chances of promotion are not protected conditions of service under Articles 14 and 16, thereby upholding the seniority fixation rules under the 2003 cadre restructuring.

labor appeal_allowed Significant seniority dispute cadre amalgamation Data Entry Operator cadre ministerial cadre

Ved Mitter Gill v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh

26 Mar 2015 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; S. A. Bobde
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of jail officials without departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b), holding that the disciplinary authority validly recorded reasons that it was not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry following a jail break.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Article 311(2)(b) Constitution of India Dismissal without inquiry Jail break Disciplinary authority satisfaction

S. Satyanarayana v. Energo Masch Power Engineering & Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

26 Mar 2015 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; S. A. Bobde

The Supreme Court held that a Special Court has jurisdiction to try IPC offences alongside Companies Act offences arising from the same transaction, and quashing proceedings solely on the basis of Section 621 Companies Act is erroneous when IPC offences are alleged.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 621 Companies Act Section 628 Companies Act Section 482 CrPC Special Court jurisdiction

Regional Deputy Director v. Zavaray S. Poonawala

26 Mar 2015 · A.K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that import of endangered species trophies requires prior approval from CITES Scientific and Management Authorities, setting aside permissions granted without such clearance.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 CITES Scientific Authority Management Authority

A. Raghu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

26 Mar 2015 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; S.A. Bobde

The Supreme Court held that candidates selected through a common recruitment process but deputed for training on different dates constitute a single batch for seniority purposes, which is to be determined based on aggregate marks obtained at the final examination after training.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant seniority Sub-Inspector of Police Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules rule 15(a) proviso

Mohan Singh Gill & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

25 Mar 2015 · Anil R. Dave; A.K. Sikri
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that land acquisition notifications must clearly state the public purpose, and utilisation of acquired land for undisclosed commercial purposes violates statutory safeguards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 5-A Section 4 notification public purpose