Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that remission applications must be reconsidered with reasoned opinions by the presiding judge considering all relevant factors, directing fresh consideration of the petitioners’ premature release requests.
Sayyed Ayaz Ali v. Prakash G Goyal
The Supreme Court held that a plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for being barred by law cannot be amended, and such rejection operates as a decree appealable under Section 96 CPC, dismissing the appellant's writ petition and appeal.
Sayyed Ayaz Ali v. Prakash G Goyal
The Supreme Court held that a plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law is not amendable, and the proper remedy is a first appeal, not a writ petition.
Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail orders in a brutal murder case for non-application of mind and lack of reasoned judicial order, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail for serious offences.
AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. M. HAKEEM & ANR
The Supreme Court held that courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have no power to modify arbitral awards and can only set aside or remit them on limited grounds, overruling contrary High Court decisions in land acquisition compensation cases under the National Highways Act.
National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot modify arbitral awards, limiting judicial power to setting aside or remitting awards, and overruled the Madras High Court's contrary view in land acquisition compensation cases under the National Highways Act.
A P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim stay of criminal proceedings in election-related fraud complaints, emphasizing caution against abuse of criminal law in election disputes.
Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam & Ors.
The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order permitting structural alteration of a dangerous building, holding that courts should not decide disputed technical facts and emphasizing the primacy of safety in eviction and redevelopment cases.
Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam & Ors.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order permitting structural alteration in a dangerous building, emphasizing deference to Municipal Corporation's safety classification and upholding the landlord's redevelopment proposal.
Barku Govind Walve & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that once watan land is regranted to the authorized holder under the Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1959, unauthorized holders cannot claim regrant under Section 9, and delay in passing the order was not a ground to set aside the decision.
ATLANTA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v. DELTA MARINE COMPANY
The Supreme Court held that interference in bank guarantee encashment is limited to cases of fraud directly related to the guarantee and dismissed the appeal seeking to admit unrelated expert evidence to delay encashment.
ATLANTA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v. DELTA MARINE COMPANY
The Supreme Court held that judicial interference in encashment of an independent bank guarantee is limited to cases of egregious fraud directly related to the guarantee and dismissed attempts to delay encashment based on unrelated signature discrepancies.
K.P. NATARAJAN v. MUTHALAMMAL
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s setting aside of an ex-parte decree passed against a minor without proper guardian appointment, emphasizing mandatory procedural safeguards and the High Court’s wide powers under Article 227.
K.P. NATARAJAN & ANR. v. MUTHALAMMAL & ORS.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s setting aside of an ex-parte decree passed against a minor without proper guardian appointment under Order XXXII, Rule 3 CPC (Madras amendment), affirming the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards and the High Court’s wide superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Om Constraction-Nice Projects Ltd. JV
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing the Petitioner’s challenge based on alleged fraud and jurisdictional objections related to CIRP of a JV partner, affirming the tribunal’s jurisdiction and rejecting claims of bias and procedural irregularities.
Sachin Kashyap & Ors v. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors
The Supreme Court held that a Writ Petition cannot be expanded to restrict DJ music without pleadings or impleading affected parties, and such restrictions must comply with law and licensing requirements.
Sachin Kashyap & Ors v. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing noise pollution restrictions on DJ music without pleadings or impleadment, quashing such directions while affirming lawful regulation under noise pollution rules.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B D Singhal
The Supreme Court held that enhancement of retirement age by government order with prospective effect cannot be given retrospective operation by courts, affirming the executive's policy domain and denying retrospective benefits to employees retired before the effective date.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B D Singhal
The Supreme Court held that enhancement of retirement age by the State government is a policy decision validly made with prospective effect, and courts cannot direct retrospective effect absent express provision or arbitrariness.
Dr. Rohit Kumar v. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed a doctor denied Study Leave during COVID-19 to pursue postgraduate studies, directing his admission in the next session and reconsideration of leave in light of improved circumstances.