Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Panchram v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, substituting it with conviction under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a sharp weapon, and reduced the sentence to the period already served.
Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly, holding that all members are liable for offences committed in prosecution of the common object.
Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, holding that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offences committed in prosecution of their common object, even if some abscond or are tried separately.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Surinder Singh
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation deposited with the Collector, allowing DDA's appeals and setting aside High Court orders to the contrary.
Delhi Development Authority v. Surinder Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is deemed complete only if possession is taken or compensation paid within five years, overruling earlier inconsistent decisions and allowing the appeals of the Delhi Development Authority.
KPTCL v. C. P. Mundinamani & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that employees who complete one full year of service before retirement are entitled to increments earned during that period even if payable after retirement, dismissing the employer's appeal.
KPTCL v. C. P. Mundinamani & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that employees who complete one year of service with good conduct are entitled to annual increments earned before retirement, even if credited the day after retirement.
KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani
The Supreme Court held that employees who earn an annual increment one day prior to retirement are entitled to receive it despite the increment accruing on the day following retirement.
K. PHANINDRA REDDY v. G. SUBRAMANIAN
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court Division Bench's order restoring permission for RSS processions under reasonable conditions, holding that a Single Judge cannot modify writ petition orders via contempt proceedings.
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Honeywell International (India) Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act is deemed complete under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, barring further challenges, but remanded cases challenging acquisition merits for fresh adjudication.
Ajmer Sah v. Haryana State
The Supreme Court set aside convictions under Sections 148, 323, 325, 307 read with 149 IPC, holding that a private dispute over a village path involving mutual injuries and agricultural tools does not establish criminal liability without intent and common unlawful assembly.
Surendra Singh v. Rajasthan State and Others
The Supreme Court held that an accused who is a member of an unlawful assembly can be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the fatal act was committed by another member, restoring the trial court conviction and setting aside the High Court acquittal.
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Honeywell International (India) Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act cannot be deemed complete under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and remanded challenges for fresh adjudication excluding the 2013 Act's applicability.
Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation paid, setting aside High Court orders declaring lapse and remanding matters for merits consideration.
A. H. Wadia Trust v. State of Maharashtra
The court set aside a unilateral deemed conveyance order granted without joining the true landowner, holding that only the promoter's rights can be conveyed and the owner must be heard under MOFA.
Javed Ahmed Hajam v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a WhatsApp status proclaiming August 5 as a black day without reasoned justification prima facie constituted an offence under Section 153-A IPC and refused to quash the FIR.
Saraswati Devi v. Ganga Ram Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of a widowed daughter-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, holding that in absence of concurrent Domestic Violence Act proceedings, the senior citizen's right to reside peacefully in his property prevails.
Deepa M v. Satlinks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld TDSAT's power under the TRAI Act to issue bailable warrants to secure attendance in execution proceedings, ruling that such warrants do not violate Section 56 CPC's prohibition on arrest or detention of women.
Birander Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representations seeking withdrawal of VRS notice within four weeks by passing a reasoned order, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.
Sant Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner’s writ petition as a representation and decide it within eight weeks with a reasoned order, disposing of the petition accordingly.