Supreme Court of India

18,244 judgments

Year:

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

Hiraman v. State of Maharashtra

16 Aug 2008 · A.K. Patnaik; H.L. Gokhale

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 6

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

M/S I.C.D.S. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE & ANR.

14 Jan 2008 · D.K. Jain; Jagdish Singh Khehar

The Supreme Court held that a leasing company is the owner of vehicles leased out and entitled to claim depreciation, including at higher rates, under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act despite registration in lessees' names under the Motor Vehicles Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant depreciation ownership lease agreement Income Tax Act, 1961

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

State of Gujarat v. Ratansingh @ Chinubhai Anopsinh Chauhan

14 Sep 2006 · K.S. Radhakrishnan; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape and murder case due to failure of prosecution to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen together rape of minor medical evidence

Sujoy Kumar Chanda v. Damayanti Majhi

06 Jul 2006 · Ranjana Prakash Desai

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot review his order refusing process and that only the Sessions Judge can summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC after committal, setting aside the High Court's order and remitting the case for proper trial procedure.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Magistrate jurisdiction Review of order Section 319 CrPC Issuance of process

Transparency International India v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

04 May 2006 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; D. Y. Chandrachud; Sanjay Kishan Kaul

The Supreme Court held that only the High Court has jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against subordinate courts under the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, quashing the Magistrate's order for arrest warrants against Transparency International India and Centre for Media Studies.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 Judicial Magistrate jurisdiction Lower judiciary corruption Show cause notice

Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra and others

11 Jul 2005 · G.S. Singhvi; V. Gopala Gowda
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that Clause 30 of the B-1 Agreement, conferring final and binding decision-making power on the Superintending Engineer, is not an arbitration clause under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and dismissed the appeal challenging this interpretation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration clause Superintending Engineer B-1 Agreement arbitration agreement