Supreme Court of India

18,257 judgments

Year:

Risal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

13 May 2014 · Dipak Misra; N.V. Ramana

The Supreme Court held that dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) without ascribing reasons for dispensing with inquiry is invalid and set aside the dismissal order, directing reinstatement with benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Article 311(2)(b) departmental inquiry dismissal from service reasoned order

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. v. The Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay

09 May 2014 · Chandramauli Kr. Prasad; Pinaki Chandra Ghose

The Supreme Court held that a Court Receiver appointed with full powers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC can file eviction suits without prior leave, and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid if the suit is filed after the notice period, dismissing the tenant’s appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Court Receiver Order XL Rule 1 CPC Section 106 Transfer of Property Act Sick Industrial Companies Act

Mosiruddin Munshi v. Md. Siraj and another

09 May 2014 · T. S. Thakur; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the preliminary stage where allegations prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, and allowed the investigation to proceed.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR cognizable offence fraudulent inducement

Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh

09 May 2014 · Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya; Kurian Joseph

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under dowry and cruelty laws due to insufficient and vague allegations, emphasizing prevention of abuse of the criminal justice system.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC Section 498A IPC Dowry Prohibition Act criminal intimidation

K. Narayanappa v. R. Prakash

09 May 2014 · T. S. Thakur; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court held that admitted landlord-tenant relationship in eviction proceedings under the Rent Act allows eviction without separate Civil Court adjudication on ownership or heirship disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant eviction petition landlord-tenant relationship Karnataka Rent Act legal heirship

Coffee Board v. M/S. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd.

09 May 2014 · Chandramauli Kumar Prasad; Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that a subsequent suit claiming reliefs omitted in an earlier suit arising from the same cause of action is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissing the respondent's suit against the Coffee Board.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 2 Rule 2 CPC cause of action bar of suit ICO stamps

Dhan Raj @ Dhand v. State of Haryana; Badal v. State of Haryana

09 May 2014 · Chandramauli Kr. Prasad; Pinaki Chandra Ghose

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants in a murder case due to incomplete circumstantial evidence and unreliable confessions, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence for conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence extra-judicial confession recovery of stolen property benefit of doubt

Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India

09 May 2014 · T.S. Thakur; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court directed transfer of investigation of the multi-state chit-fund scam from State Police to the CBI, affirming the constitutional power of courts to ensure fair and credible inquiry to protect fundamental rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant transfer of investigation Central Bureau of Investigation chit fund scam judicial review

Abdul Mateen v. State of Rajasthan

09 May 2014 · K.S. Radhakrishnan; Dipak Misra
Cites 10 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld convictions in a 1996 Jaipur bomb blast case, validating sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, admissibility of approver evidence, and possession of explosive materials, while rejecting procedural and evidentiary challenges.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 7 sanction Section 27 Evidence Act approver testimony

Union of India v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd

09 May 2014 · Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya; J. Chelameswar

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6620 of 2003.

civil appeal_allowed Civil Appeal Union of India Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Supreme Court

Bhikhubhai Vitthalbhai Patel & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

09 May 2014 · Dr. B.S. Chauhan; J. Chelameswar; M.Y. Eqbal

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, allowing reservation and sale of land under town planning schemes even after lapse of designation under Section 20(2), with adequate compensation provisions ensuring no violation of property rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 Section 40(3)(jj) Section 20(2) Town planning scheme

Dayanand Ramkrishna Shet v. State of Karnataka

09 May 2014 · T. S. Thakur; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court modified the sentence of appellants convicted for embezzlement under Sections 409 and 467 IPC, treating the deposited amount as compensation under Section 357 CrPC, and upheld conviction despite absence of sanction under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant embezzlement sanction to prosecute Section 409 IPC Section 467 IPC

Amar Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

09 May 2014 · Krishna Murari
Cites 0 · Cited by 10

The Supreme Court overturned murder convictions based on sole eye witness testimony found to be unnatural and unreliable, emphasizing the need for credible corroboration and consistency with medical evidence.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant sole eye witness testimony Section 302 IPC murder conviction corroboration

Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla

08 May 2014 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court directed expeditious adjudication of a corporate dispute by the Company Law Board, emphasized mediation as an effective resolution mechanism, and disposed of multiple interlocutory and criminal proceedings to streamline litigation.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Company Law Board Section 340 CrPC Section 397 Companies Act Section 398 Companies Act

Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja

08 May 2014 · Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya; Ranjan Gogoi
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that leave to defend eviction on bona fide requirement grounds under the Delhi Rent Control Act requires a triable issue, and mere assertions about other properties do not suffice to deny eviction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leave to defend bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction

G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors.

08 May 2014 · K.S. Radhakrishnan; Vikramajit Sen · (2013) 6 SCC 620
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the clearance for Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project’s criticality, holding that the respondents are earnestly complying with Court directions and no interference is warranted at this stage.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project First Approach to Criticality Court directions compliance

M/S MAHAMAYA GEN. FINANCE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF U.P.

08 May 2014 · Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya; Ranjan Gogoi

The Supreme Court held that contemporaneous sale deeds of the appellant must be considered for determining just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, setting aside earlier awards and directing recomputation with solatium and interest.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation sale deeds reference under Section 18

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

08 May 2014 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; A.K. Sikri
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld that Tata Power is a deemed distribution licensee authorized to supply electricity in BEST's area, and BEST's exemption from open access does not bar TPC from supplying consumers using its own network.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Electricity Act 2003 deemed distribution licensee open access local authority exemption

Cherukuri Mani v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh

08 May 2014 · Ranjana Prakash Desai; N. V. Ramana

The Supreme Court held that a preventive detention order exceeding three months without periodic extensions violates statutory and constitutional safeguards and quashed a 12-month detention order passed in one stroke.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant preventive detention Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 Article 22(4)(a) Constitution of India periodic review

National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout

08 May 2014 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court held that employees of schools managed by independent societies with financial support from NALCO are not NALCO employees, rejecting claims for parity in pay and benefits.

labor appeal_allowed Significant employer-employee relationship control and supervision test Managing Committee Societies Registration Act