Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt
Wages of employees during CIRP are payable as insolvency resolution costs only if the corporate debtor was a going concern and employees actually worked, while provident fund, gratuity, and pension dues are excluded from liquidation estate and must be paid separately.
Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt
Wages of employees who actually worked during CIRP when the corporate debtor was a going concern qualify as CIRP costs with priority payment, while provident fund and gratuity dues are excluded from liquidation estate and must be paid separately.
Sushri v. Rajasthan State
The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's bail order for a habitual offender accused of serious sexual offences, emphasizing strict judicial scrutiny and proper application of discretion under Section 439 CrPC.
Y v. Rajasthan State & Ors.
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court bail order granted mechanically without reasons in a serious sexual offence case involving a habitual offender, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion under Section 439 CrPC.
Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
The Supreme Court set aside a cryptic High Court bail order in a serious rape case, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judicial discretion under Section 439 CrPC.
Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I
The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's appeal challenging a penalty exceeding the tax effect threshold is maintainable despite subsequent reduction, and that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to approve penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c).
Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I
The Supreme Court held that the Revenue's appeal challenging a penalty is maintainable based on the original penalty amount despite subsequent reductions, and that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has jurisdiction to approve such penalties.
Union of India v. M. Duraisamy
The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of a postal employee for serious fraud, holding that courts should not interfere with disciplinary punishment based on sympathy or repayment after misconduct is proved.
Union of India v. M. Duraisamy
The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of a postal employee who committed serious fraud, holding that courts should not reduce punishment based on sympathy when misconduct is proved.
Nemai Chandra Dey v. Prasanta Chandra
The Supreme Court held that the first appellate Court must reappreciate evidence and apply law with reasons, and remanded the case for fresh disposal due to the appellate Court's failure to discharge its duties.
Jagdish Mavji Tank Through Lrs. & Ors. v. Harresh Navnitrai Mehta & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the developer with requisite tenant consent is entitled to redevelop the property without MHADA's imposed conditions, rejected MHADA's ownership claim over acquired land, and directed strict compliance with redevelopment timelines.
V G Jagdishan v. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited
The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court at the place of employment and termination alone has territorial jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal challenging the jurisdictional objection raised by the respondent.
V G Jagdishan v. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited
The Supreme Court held that only the Labour Court at the place of employment and termination has territorial jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal challenging the jurisdictional objection raised by the employer.
Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court modified an interim arbitral order directing deposit of rent during Covid-19 lockdown, holding that force majeure claims must be considered before ordering full payment.
State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's summary disposal of a writ petition challenging a public service tribunal order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with reasoned findings.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order for disposing of a writ petition without merits and remanded the case for fresh consideration with reasoned findings.
K.C. LAXMANA v. K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA
The Supreme Court upheld that a gift of joint family ancestral property by the Karta to a non-coparcener without consent and not for a pious purpose is voidable, and the suit challenging it was within the twelve-year limitation period under Article 109 of the Limitation Act.
Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court held that in absence of statutory provision for a waiting list, a candidate next in merit cannot claim appointment to a vacancy unfilled due to non-joining of a selected candidate, and such vacancy must be carried forward for future recruitment.
State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that acknowledgments of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act extend the limitation period for filing Section 7 IBC applications, setting aside lower tribunals' rejection on limitation grounds and remanding for fresh adjudication.
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. DREAMZ11 AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against defendants for trademark infringement and passing off of the registered mark "Dream11" and restrained use of the confusingly similar mark "dreamz11" and domain name.