Supreme Court of India
16,355 judgments
Jaswant Singh v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that denial of legal assistance in a Summary Court Martial violates natural justice and set aside the dismissal and imprisonment of the appellant.
Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways
The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for prosthetic limbs and loss of future income in a motor accident case, establishing a standardized approach for awarding just and reasonable damages including periodic replacement and maintenance costs.
Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of possession taken by the State under the Urban Land Ceiling Act through panchanama and held that procedural irregularities did not invalidate acquisition where statutory requirements were substantially complied with.
Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for rash driving causing injury but modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine considering the long delay since the offence.
Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police
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.
ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
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.
ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
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.
ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
A preventive detention order passed after revocation must be based on fresh grounds arising post-revocation; otherwise, it is invalid and liable to be set aside.
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY
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.
HARDEV SINGH v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY
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.
Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri v. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department
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.
Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri v. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department
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.
Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
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.
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DR. KAMALA SELVARAJ
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.
M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. State of Jharkhand
The Supreme Court held that audit objections pointing out overlooked factual errors constitute valid 'information' under Section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, justifying re-opening of assessment, and upheld the re-assessment order against M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd.