Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising appellate powers under the guise of review jurisdiction, and restored the original writ petition judgment while remanding related matters for fresh consideration.
Roopwanti v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of accused persons, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable.
Haryana Raj v. Sanrajan Sah
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of the Haryana government's refusal to release disputed lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the need for genuine public purpose and non-arbitrariness in land acquisition.
State of Haryana v. Niranjan Singh
The Supreme Court upheld the release of certain acquired lands on parity grounds while reversing release orders for lands already utilized or required for public infrastructure, emphasizing non-arbitrariness and public interest in land acquisition.
Bhoomi Adhigrahan Collector v. Jai Prakash Yogi
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is deemed complete only if possession and measurement were taken within five years before the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Jai Prakash Tyagi
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's declaration of lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying that lapse occurs only if possession and compensation both are absent for five years prior to the Act's commencement.
Bhoomi Adhijan Collector v. Jai Prakash Yogi
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is deemed valid only if both possession and award were completed before the Act's commencement, overruling earlier precedent and setting conditions for deemed acquisition.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Jai Prakash Tyagi
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, overruling earlier contrary precedent and allowing the appeal of the Land Acquisition Collector.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajiv
The Supreme Court held that landowners are entitled to compensation for land used by the State without formal acquisition, treating a lapsed Section 4 notification as deemed acquisition date, while excluding interest for delay but granting other statutory benefits.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajiv and Anr.
The Supreme Court held that landowners are entitled to compensation based on a deemed acquisition date despite delay, directing the State to pay compensation without interest for the delayed period under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Manoharlal & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, abandonment of acquisition occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, and possession without payment does not amount to abandonment.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 2013 Act lapses only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid before the cut-off date, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's declaration of lapse.
Delhi Development Authority v. Rajender Singh
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, even if disputed or deposited in court.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jad Bai
The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused for murder under sections 302 and 34 IPC, holding that active participation by catching the deceased establishes common intention.
de8b68b000a72f7d7626f9d9b2341b8baab7918ee0bea8e5ce52520511710904
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, affirming the applicability of common intention doctrine and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence despite procedural challenges.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jad Bai
The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused for murder under sections 302 and 34 IPC, holding that active participation and failure to explain incriminating conduct establish common intention.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi
The Supreme Court held that a suit filed beyond the limitation period and with concurrent findings of consent and waiver cannot be allowed, setting aside the High Court's interference and restoring dismissal of the suit.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's dismissal of a suit for acquisition compensation as barred by limitation, holding that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings.
20e8f532dbf2cb843c44dae1bbd7b5dd8ab3d8ba985c5af61ed0a67081c05d87
The court upheld compensation awards under the Odisha Land Acquisition Act, rejecting claims for additional enhancement and interest, and held that the 2013 Act does not apply retrospectively.
Union of India and Ors. v. BWO Bijan Kumar Ghosh
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption of service connection absent contrary proof and limiting writ review to jurisdictional errors.