Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies independently to buyers claiming refund of excise duty paid under protest by manufacturers, and refund claims filed beyond this period are barred.
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies strictly to buyers claiming refund of excise duty paid under protest by manufacturers, dismissing refund claims filed beyond this period.
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applies separately to buyers and manufacturers, and a buyer cannot claim refund of duty paid under protest by the manufacturer beyond this period.
Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike; Punjab Wakf Board v. Teja Singh
The Supreme Court held that suits for possession and injunction relating to Wakf properties are maintainable before Wakf Tribunals under the Wakf Act, 1995, clarifying the limits of civil court jurisdiction and distinguishing the Ramesh Gobindram precedent.
Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike; Punjab Wakf Board v. Teja Singh
The Supreme Court held that prior to the 2013 amendment, suits for eviction or possession relating to Wakf properties are maintainable only before civil courts and not Wakf Tribunals, dismissing the Punjab Wakf Board's appeals.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings requested before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by the pre-amended law, no claim certificates signed under duress do not bar arbitration, and courts must respect contractual procedures for appointing arbitrators.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates signed under financial duress do not extinguish disputes, and courts must respect agreed arbitration appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 does not apply to arbitration proceedings commenced before its commencement, no claim certificates signed under economic duress do not bar arbitration, and the High Court rightly appointed independent arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the pre-amended Act due to failure of the appellants to follow the agreed appointment procedure.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration demands made before the 2015 Amendment are governed by pre-amendment law, 'no claim' certificates do not bar arbitration if signed under duress, and courts must respect agreed arbitration appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that absent prima facie evidence of coercion, a full and final discharge voucher accepted without protest extinguishes arbitral disputes, and the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates signed under duress do not bar arbitration, and courts must respect agreed arbitration appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates do not bar arbitration if signed under duress, and the High Court rightly appointed independent arbitrators due to failure to follow agreed appointment procedures.
Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company
The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced before the 2015 Amendment Act are governed by pre-amendment law, no claim certificates do not bar arbitration if signed under duress, and the High Court rightly appointed independent arbitrators due to failure of parties to follow agreed appointment procedures.
Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
The Supreme Court held that Indian courts lack jurisdiction over custody of minor children who are US citizens and not ordinarily resident in India, affirming the US Court's custody orders and emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's welfare and comity of courts.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Alias Pappu
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC for acid attack causing 16% burns, reduced sentence to 5 years, and directed additional victim compensation from accused and State.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Alias Pappu
The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 326 IPC for acid attack causing 16% burns, refused to restore attempt to murder charge, and directed additional victim compensation from accused and State.
Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
The Supreme Court upheld the US Court's jurisdiction over custody of minor children born and residing in the US, dismissed the Indian custody petition for lack of jurisdiction, and emphasized the paramount importance of the children's best interest and welfare in cross-border custody disputes.
Kalabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court altered the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing the sentence to five years' rigorous imprisonment based on the dying declaration and absence of intention to cause death.
Kalabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court altered the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing the sentence based on the absence of intention to cause death despite the fatal act.
Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh through LRs & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that possession by a female Hindu without title does not confer absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, upholding a will excluding the widow from inheritance and dismissing her claim to the disputed property.