Supreme Court of India

18,587 judgments

Year:

Deepak @ Wireless v. State of Maharashtra

04 Sep 2012 · Swatanter Kumar; Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka

04 Sep 2012 · P. Sathasivam; Dr. B. S. Chauhan

NAND CONTR. & ENGR. THR G.D. AHUJA v. NORTHERN COAL FIELDS LTD.

04 Sep 2012 · K.S. Radhakrishnan; Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator's award on water charges, reduced the interest rate to 10% per annum from the date of completion, and dismissed the claim for plaster of paris, modifying the High Court's judgment accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration award interest rate contractual obligations water charges

Rakhal Debnath v. State of West Bengal

04 Sep 2012 · Swatanter Kumar; Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband for abetment of suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, relying on the presumption under Section 113-A Evidence Act and consistent circumstantial evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant abetment of suicide Section 306 IPC Section 498A IPC dowry demand

Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Smt. Khazani

04 Sep 2012 · K. S. Radhakrishnan; Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court dismissed a bank's appeal against consumer forum orders in a trivial Rs. 15,000 insurance claim dispute, emphasizing judicial restraint and discouraging protracted litigation over minor matters.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Special Leave Petition trivial dispute judicial restraint

Sudarshanacharaya v. Purushottamacharya

04 Sep 2012 · Aftab Alam; Ranjana Prakash Desai

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash a criminal breach of trust complaint despite delay, emphasizing that delay alone does not warrant quashing unless it amounts to abuse of process or violates the right to speedy trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant criminal breach of trust Section 406 IPC Section 482 CrPC right to speedy trial

Seva Lal v. Sri Kant & Ors.

03 Sep 2012 · R. M. Lodha; Anil R. Dave

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

03 Sep 2012 · Aftab Alam; K.S. Radhakrishnan; Swatanter Kumar

Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD

06 Aug 2012 · Altamas Kabir; Surinder Singh Nijjar; J. Chelameswar

The Supreme Court held that an accused's statutory right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated by retrospective extension of custody after the initial period expires and before filing of the charge-sheet.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant statutory bail Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act custody extension

Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari

20 Jul 2012 · Dr. B. S. Chauhan; J. Chelameswar; M. Y. Eqbal

The Supreme Court held that election disputes must be confined to pleaded issues, invalidated certain disputed votes for identification marks, resulting in a tie resolved by draw of lots, thereby declaring the appellant elected.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant election petition Representation of the People Act, 1951 ballot paper validity secrecy of ballot

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. U. DINAKAR

30 May 2012 · Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya; Kurian Joseph

The Supreme Court held that a competent authority can lawfully rectify a mistaken pay scale in an appointment letter after due opportunity, rejecting the claim to a higher Central pay scale when appointed by direct recruitment on a State pay scale.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pay scale correction appointment letter mistake direct recruitment Central pay scale

Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi

04 May 2012 · Altamas Kabir; J. Chelameswar

The Supreme Court held that High Courts cannot pass interim disqualification orders against MLAs pending before the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule, affirming the Speaker's exclusive jurisdiction and limiting judicial interference to post-final decision review.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Tenth Schedule Anti-defection law Speaker jurisdiction Disqualification petitions

Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand

09 Apr 2012 · Aravind Kumar; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 1059
Cites 0 · Cited by 16

The Supreme Court held that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Will do not confer title without a registered sale deed and proper proof, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession and protecting the bona fide purchaser's rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 54 Section 53A Agreement to Sell

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu

08 Oct 2011 · Surya Kant; Hima Kohli
Cites 0 · Cited by 39

The Supreme Court held that the respondent's acts went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, restoring his conviction and sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant attempt to commit rape preparation vs attempt Section 376 IPC Section 511 IPC

Jayaswamy v. State of Karnataka

12 Aug 2011 · Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; L. Nageswara Rao
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for causing grievous hurt but set aside his murder conviction, emphasizing that appellate courts should not disturb acquittals without substantial and compelling reasons.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant acquittal appellate interference common intention grievous hurt

M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD.

21 Jul 2011 · Abhay S. Oka; Sanjay Karol · 2023 INSC 1059
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that appeals under the Jogighopa Act are not governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, and in absence of prescribed limitation, appeals must be filed within reasonable time, allowing the delayed appeal filed by the appellant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 116 Jogighopa Act, 1990 Commissioner of Payments

M/S. AJAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SATYANARAYAN SOMANI

03 Jun 2011 · JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR; DR D Y CHANDRACHUD

The Supreme Court held that renewal of a public lease is discretionary and must be exercised in public interest with transparency, setting aside a flawed lease renewal and conversion to freehold by UDA in favor of a private developer.

property appeal_allowed Significant lease renewal public land Ujjain Development Authority leasehold rights

Smt Sulekha Rani v. Union of India

28 Mar 2011 · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Indira Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 8

The Supreme Court held that discharge of an army personnel on medical grounds without an Invalidation Medical Board is illegal and directed grant of family pension treating service as continuing until death.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Invalidation Medical Board Army Rules 1954 medical discharge family pension

Delhi Development Authority v. Prithi Pal Singh

24 Dec 2010 · Kurian Joseph; Rohinton Fali Nariman
Cites 0 · Cited by 10

The Supreme Court held that actual physical possession is required under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act to deny de-notification and used its constitutional power under Article 142 to settle a decades-old land dispute by allocating part of the land to DDA and the remainder to the respondent.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 48 Physical possession De-notification

Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan v. State of West Bengal

09 Dec 2010 · N. V. Ramana; Surya Kant; Aniruddha Bose
Cites 0 · Cited by 12

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of ganja but reduced the sentence to the period already served considering mitigating factors and the law as it stood at the time of the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 ganja possession conscious possession