Supreme Court of India

17,225 judgments

Year:

Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora v. State of Punjab

08 Nov 2009 · Prafulla C. Pant
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a police officer for robbery, trespass, and wrongful confinement, rejecting claims of scapegoating and delay-based sentence reduction.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery wrongful confinement house trespass false FIR

Bijender @ Mandar v. State of Haryana

07 Sep 2009 · N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Hima Kohli · AIR 1954 SC 1
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that conviction solely on disclosure statements without credible corroborative evidence and in presence of hostile witnesses cannot sustain.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant disclosure statement recovery of incriminating articles benefit of doubt concurrent findings

N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI

18 Jun 2009 · N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Hima Kohli
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and falsification of accounts due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses, emphasizing the necessity of proving mens rea and lawful authorization in bank fraud cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant criminal breach of trust Section 409 IPC cheating Section 420 IPC

Padma Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

09 Jun 2009 · Indira Banerjee; Aniruddha Bose · 2020 INSC 179

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash an FIR under the Gangsters Act, holding that prima facie allegations of violence and intimidation justify registration and the limited scope of quashing under Article 226.

criminal appeal_dismissed quashing of FIR Article 226 Gangsters Act definition of gangster

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd.

27 Mar 2009 · A. S. Bopanna
Cites 0 · Cited by 27

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint against an insurer runs from the date of repudiation or failure to settle the claim, and that a surveyor's report, while important, is not conclusive if credible contrary evidence is produced.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation cause of action consumer protection insurance claim

Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

30 Jan 2009 · Ranjan Gogoi; K. M. Joseph; Ajay Rastogi
Cites 0 · Cited by 15

The Supreme Court set aside murder convictions based on incomplete circumstantial evidence and uncorroborated extra judicial confession, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence extra judicial confession Section 302 IPC Section 120B IPC

Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union

08 Jan 2009 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy; M.R. Shah
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a cut-off date for pension scheme implementation, ruling that employees retired under a different scheme before that date do not form a homogeneous class entitled to retrospective pension benefits.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Pension Scheme Cut-off date Contributory Provident Fund Article 14

Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union

08 Jan 2009 · Ashok Bhushan; R. Subhash Reddy; M.R. Shah
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a cut-off date for pension benefits, distinguishing retirees under a prior provident fund scheme from employees eligible under a newly introduced pension scheme, and held that such classification is not arbitrary or discriminatory.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Pension Scheme Cut-off date Contributory Provident Fund Article 14

DKG Buildcon Private Ltd. v. The Adjudicating & Enquiry Officer

07 Jan 2009 · Ajay Rastogi; B. V. Nagarathna

The Supreme Court upheld SEBI's imposition of maximum penalty on companies for willful non-compliance with investigation summons relating to securities market manipulation, affirming the authority of SEBI's Investigating Officer and the applicability of amended penalty provisions.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Section 15A(a) SEBI Act Section 11C(3) SEBI Act penalty for non-compliance

State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram @ Leela Dhar

13 Aug 2008 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah

The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC for a fatal single axe blow to the skull, rejecting the High Court's reduction to culpable homicide under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC murder culpable homicide

State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram @ Leela Dhar

13 Aug 2008 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; M R Shah
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC for a fatal single axe blow to the skull, rejecting the High Court's reduction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC murder culpable homicide

Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain v. State of Gujarat

29 Feb 2008 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court acquitted appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC due to lack of evidence proving their common intention and participation in the crime.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention pre-arranged plan

Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

04 Feb 2008 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of Kripal Singh based on reliable ocular and medical evidence despite acquittal of co-accused, emphasizing cautious appraisal of evidence and rejecting rigid application of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC ocular testimony medical evidence recovery of weapon

Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

04 Feb 2008 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction of Kripal Singh based on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical and recovery evidence, rejecting the plea that acquittal of co-accused undermined his guilt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC ocular testimony falsus in uno falsus in omnibus recovery evidence

Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

13 May 2007 · J. B. Pardiwala; Prashant Kumar Mishra
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court upheld the murder and harassment convictions of a husband and mother-in-law, applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act to draw adverse inference from the accused’s failure to explain the presence of poison causing the wife’s death.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 498A IPC Section 106 Evidence Act circumstantial evidence

State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu

05 Feb 2007 · Dipak Misra
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Supreme Court upheld its jurisdiction to hear appeals against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award, directed strict compliance with water release orders, and refused to remit the matter back to the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for final adjudication and maintenance of law and order.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 Cauvery Water Dispute Article 136 Constitution of India Tribunal award

The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. R. Chandramohan

01 Feb 2007 · Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi
Cites 0 · Cited by 28

The Supreme Court held that consumer forums cannot entertain complaints involving disputed facts or fraud allegations in summary proceedings and dismissed the complaint for lack of proof of deficiency in banking service.

civil appeal_allowed Significant deficiency in service Consumer Protection Act, 1986 disputed facts summary proceedings

M/s. Balwant Singh & Sons v. National Insurance Company Ltd

28 Nov 2006 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that an insurer is liable to indemnify a transferee who purchased a vehicle at auction and paid the premium, despite non-transfer of registration certificate, as the insurer accepted the risk and the transferee had insurable interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 insurance policy insurable interest transfer of ownership

Kanakarajan @ Kanakan v. State of Kerala

08 Nov 2006 · N. V. Ramana; Prafulla C. Pant
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Kanakarajan due to serious infirmities in the prosecution case, granting him benefit of doubt and emphasizing the necessity of reliable evidence and proper investigation for sustaining conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant benefit of doubt independent witnesses hostile witness investigative lapses