Supreme Court of India

18,256 judgments

Year:

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Dec 2013 · R. M. Lodha; Kurian Joseph
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that drug price fixation notifications under DPCO take immediate effect for all sales within 15 days, rejecting the allowance of old prices for pre-notification stock and overruling contrary circulars and Delhi High Court's view.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Prices Control) Order price fixation effective batch number manufacturer liability

Alsia Pardhi v. State of M.P.

06 Dec 2013 · P. Sathasivam; Ranjana Prakash Desai; Ranjan Gogoi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed a CBI investigation into the alleged kidnapping of a minor by forest officials, emphasizing the courts' power to ensure fair investigation to protect fundamental rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant habeas corpus CBI investigation Article 21 judicial review

State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd

06 Dec 2013 · Anil R. Dave; Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court held that the State Government lacks power under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008 to issue retrospective notifications imposing or increasing environment and health cess on mineral rights, thereby upholding the High Court's invalidation of such retrospective levy.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant retrospective notification environment and health cess mineral rights delegated legislation

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

06 Dec 2013 · G.S. Singhvi; B.S. Chauhan; Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

The Supreme Court clarified the regulatory powers of TRAI and the jurisdiction of TDSAT over interconnection disputes and upheld the Authority's power to fix interconnectivity terms subject to statutory and contractual limits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 Interconnection agreements Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal Jurisdiction

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma

06 Dec 2013 · P. Sathasivam; Ranjan Gogoi

The Supreme Court held that proclaimed offenders absconding in serious offences are not entitled to anticipatory bail and set aside the High Court's bail orders accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 CrPC proclaimed offender Section 82 CrPC

Madan & Anr v. State of Maharashtra

06 Dec 2013 · P. Sathasivam; Ranjana Prakash Desai; Ranjan Gogoi

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act runs from the date the claimant knows of the Award, including after apportionment under Section 30, and allowed the appeal restoring enhanced compensation.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18 Section 30 limitation

Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli & Anr v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

06 Dec 2013 · Anil R. Dave; Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court held that Assistant Public Prosecutors are advocates practising at the Bar and that absence of a minimum age in recruitment rules precludes disqualification on age grounds for judicial appointments.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Assistant Public Prosecutor Advocate practising at Bar District and Sessions Judge Article 233(2) Constitution of India

Ravindra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

05 Dec 2013 · Anil R. Dave; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging inclusion of reserved category candidates in the unreserved list at the preliminary examination stage, affirming that such inclusion on merit is permissible and does not violate reservation principles.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant reservation State Service Examination Rules preliminary examination unreserved category

Sasidhar Reddy Sura v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

05 Dec 2013 · Anil R. Dave; Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court held that the minimum age of 35 years recommended by a commission is not a mandatory eligibility criterion for appointment as District and Sessions Judge unless incorporated in statutory recruitment rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant District and Sessions Judge minimum age Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 Justice Shetty Commission

John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham & Another

05 Dec 2013 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to contradictions and deficiencies in the complainant's evidence, restoring the trial court's acquittal.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Cheque bounce Presumption under Section 139 Contradictory evidence

Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa

05 Dec 2013 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

The Supreme Court held that trial courts must actively use their powers under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses and rectify contradictory evidence to ensure justice, allowing the victim to seek such remedy despite limited role under Section 301 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 311 CrPC Section 301 CrPC Test Identification Parade Recall of witness

RAM GOPAL YADAV v. PARAMJEET KAUR

03 Dec 2013 · T. S. Thakur; J. Chelameswar

The Supreme Court allowed enhancement of compensation for permanent disability in a motor accident claim despite delay, setting aside the High Court's dismissal on limitation grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation enhancement of compensation limitation permanent disability

N.ANANTHA REDDY v. ANSHU KATHURIA

02 Dec 2013 · R.M. Lodha; Shiva Kirti Singh

The Supreme Court held that a neighbour alleging infringement of right to light and air is a proper party to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order on merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleadment right to light and air review jurisdiction

KN Aswathnarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka

02 Dec 2013 · Dr. B.S. Chauhan; S.A. Bobde · AIR 2001 SC 437
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that purchasers of land after issuance of Section 4 notification during pending acquisition proceedings acquire no title and cannot challenge acquisition; possession vests land in the State free from encumbrances, rendering subsequent de-notification invalid.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 4 notification de-notification possession under Land Acquisition Act

Purushotham v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

29 Nov 2013 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision invalidating the allotment of land reserved for a bank to a petrol pump operator, affirming that land reserved for a specific civic amenity cannot be diverted to another use under Section 38A of the BDA Act.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 Section 38A civic amenities land allotment

A.P.I.I. Corpn. Ltd v. M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd

29 Nov 2013 · Anil R. Dave; Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court held that non-payment of full consideration leads to forfeiture and cancellation of allotment, and the official liquidator has no right to dispose of the plot not legally owned by the company in liquidation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant allotment of land forfeiture ownership transfer official liquidator

M/s. Paragon Rubber Industries v. M/s. Pragathi Rubber Mills

29 Nov 2013 · Surinder Singh Nijjar; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court held that a composite suit under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is maintainable only if the court has jurisdiction over both causes of action, and dismissed appeals challenging the High Court's order on territorial jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant composite suit territorial jurisdiction Copyright Act 1957 Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958

Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. v. Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors.

29 Nov 2013 · T.S. Thakur; Vikramajit Sen

The Supreme Court upheld the lawful cancellation of a railway tender process due to procedural deficiencies and public interest, affirming limited judicial interference in government contract awards.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant tender cancellation judicial review vested right public interest

Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Biotor Industries Ltd.

29 Nov 2013 · G.S. Singhvi; V. Gopala Gowda
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that market fees are leviable on castor seeds purchased within the market area by an industrial concern, rejected exemption under Rule 48(2) for such purchases, and affirmed that de-oiled cake is not liable to market fees.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Agricultural Produce Market Committee market fee levy castor seeds Rule 48(2) exemption

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dongar Singh

29 Nov 2013 · H. L. Gokhale; J. Chelameswar

The Supreme Court restored the one-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for death caused by rash and negligent driving, rejecting the High Court's reduction based on trial delay.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 304A IPC rash and negligent driving sentence reduction trial delay