Supreme Court of India

14,826 judgments

Year:

M/S. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

14 Feb 2025 · SANJIV KHANNA; SANJAY KUMAR; K.V. VISWANATHAN · 2025 INSC 215
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a bidder who made a patent mistake in the bid amount, directing partial payment as consequence and return of the bank guarantee, emphasizing equitable relief and proportionality in public tender disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant unilateral mistake bid security equitable relief public procurement

JSW STEEL LTD. v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUMBAI PORT TRUST MUMBAI

14 Feb 2025 · Ahsanuddin Amanullah; Prashant Kumar Mishra · 2025 INSC 257
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that systemic delay cannot bar adjudication of a pure legal question under Article 226 and liability for wreck removal under the Indian Ports Act lies on the vessel owner, not a third party who deposited security under protest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 226 Indian Ports Act 1908 wreck removal liability systemic delay

Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh

14 Feb 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Manoj Misra · 2025 INSC 220

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a dacoity case due to unreliable identification and doubtful arrest and recovery evidence, emphasizing the limited evidentiary value of TIP without examination of participating witnesses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Test Identification Parade dock identification dacoity recovery of weapon

M/S. B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS v. R N NADIGAR & ORS

14 Feb 2025 · R. Mahadevan; J.B. Pardiwala · 2025 INSC 214

The Supreme Court held that a decree for permanent injunction is binding only on parties to the suit and does not bar a subsequent representative suit by third parties challenging title, dismissing the latter suit for lack of locus standi and maintainability.

civil appeal_allowed Significant res judicata locus standi permanent injunction representative suit

Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd.

14 Feb 2025 · Abhay S. Oka; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2025 INSC 219

The Supreme Court held that damages for breach of contract are limited to stipulated liquidated damages unless contractual remedies like replacement are invoked, dismissing the appellant's claim for Rs. 68.15 lakhs beyond liquidated damages.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant liquidated damages performance guarantee arbitration award Section 74 Indian Contract Act

Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne

14 Feb 2025 · J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan · 2025 INSC 213

The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell evidencing or agreeing to transfer possession is deemed a conveyance liable for stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, dismissing the appellant's challenge to impounding of the agreement for deficit stamp duty and penalty.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 agreement to sell stamp duty deemed conveyance

JHARKHAND URJA UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR v. M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

14 Feb 2025 · J.B. PARDIWALA; R. MAHADEVAN · 2025 INSC 533

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for appeals under the Commercial Courts Act starts from judgment pronouncement, not receipt of certified copies, and refused to condone a 301-day delay caused by petitioner’s negligence, emphasizing speedy disposal of commercial disputes.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 limitation period condonation of delay Order XX Rule 1 CPC

K. Krishnamurthy v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

13 Feb 2025 · J. B. Pardiwala; Manmohan · 2025 INSC 208
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court held that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act is discretionary and leviable only on undisclosed income not admitted during search and for which tax and interest have not been paid, directing penalty on Rs.2.49 crores instead of entire returned income.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 271AAA undisclosed income penalty search and seizure

Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

13 Feb 2025 · Abhay S. Oka; Ujjal Bhuyan · 2025 INSC 209

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in a murder case due to failure of the prosecution to prove key circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt and procedural irregularities in witness examination.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC circumstantial evidence last seen together evasive replies

Chief Manager of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Haneef Khan

13 Feb 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 250
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting full back wages and restored the award of 50% back wages to the terminated employee, emphasizing fairness in back wage awards under the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor appeal_allowed Significant back wages Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b) deemed continuation of service

Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka

13 Feb 2025 · Sanjay Karol; Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 303
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment after considering mitigating factors.

criminal sentence_modified Significant circumstantial evidence death penalty Section 302 IPC last seen theory

P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas

13 Feb 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Sandeep Mehta · 2025 INSC 212

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a revised government order granting seniority to temporarily appointed AEEs from their initial appointment date, rejecting the High Court's quashing of the order on grounds of functus officio and natural justice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant temporary appointment seniority regularisation functus officio

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

13 Feb 2025 · Bela M. Trivedi; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 364
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court upheld directions restricting appearance markings to authorized Advocates physically present, emphasizing adherence to statutory Rules and rejecting claims that such directions infringe Advocates' professional rights.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court Rules 2013 Appearance Slip Vakalatnama

Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

12 Feb 2025 · B. V. Nagarathna; Satish Chandra Sharma · 2025 INSC 203
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute where the FIR was found vexatious and the serious offence initially alleged was not pursued, emphasizing careful scrutiny under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute vexatious prosecution

Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

12 Feb 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah · 2025 INSC 196
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of a Habeas Corpus petition as infructuous and held that police statements during court proceedings did not amount to defamation or humiliation.

criminal appeal_dismissed Habeas Corpus Unauthorized detention Infructuous petition Defamation in court

DHARAMVIR SINGH v. SHRI RAJIV MEHRISHI

12 Feb 2025 · B. R. Gavai; Augustine George Masih · 2025 INSC 224

The Supreme Court directed pay-scale revision and arrears payment from the correct date despite typographical errors in earlier orders, dismissing contempt allegations against the respondents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pay-scale revision typographical error contempt of court arrears

Krishna Katara v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

12 Feb 2025 · Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah · 2025 INSC 198

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities Act, holding that mere civil disputes disguised as criminal offences do not justify invoking stringent anti-gang provisions without sufficient material.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 quashing of FIR anti-social activities civil dispute vs criminal offence

M/S TECHNO PRINTS v. CHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION

12 Feb 2025 · J.B. PARDIWALA; R. MAHADEVAN · 2025 INSC 236
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Supreme Court quashed the blacklisting show cause notice against a printing contractor, holding that blacklisting is a drastic penalty requiring strong grounds beyond mere contractual breach and that premature judicial interference with show cause notices is generally unwarranted.

civil appeal_allowed Significant show cause notice blacklisting breach of contract tender agreement

Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur

12 Feb 2025 · Abhay S. Oka; Ahsanuddin Amanullah; Augustine George Masih · 2025 INSC 197

The Supreme Court held that spouses of marriages declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are entitled to claim maintenance and permanent alimony under Sections 24 and 25, subject to discretion and conduct of the parties.

family appeal_allowed Significant Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 11 Section 24 Section 25

The State of Maharashtra v. Prism Cement Limited & Anr.

12 Feb 2025 · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Pankaj Mithal · 2025 INSC 199

The Supreme Court held that the 2002 amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act applies prospectively and does not retrospectively withdraw vested tax exemption rights granted under the PSI 1993 scheme without due revocation or notice.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Section 8(5) Package Scheme of Incentives 1993 tax exemption