Popular Searches
Contact Us Contact Us
Type Name, Keywords to find judgments
Popular Searches

Narayan Das vs State of Chhattisgarh – Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

In Narayan Das vs State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was found in possession of 236 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate, a psychotropic substance. Although the High Court reduced the sentence from 12 to 10 years, the petitioner challenged the conviction and seizure procedure. The Supreme Court found no procedural illegality or legal error and emphasized the correct interpretation of Section 32-B, clarifying that the sentencing court can impose punishment higher than the minimum based on broader discretion, not just the factors listed under clauses (a) to (f).

Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah vs. The State of Karnataka – Criminal Appeal

In the tragic case of Byluru Thippaiah vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court dealt with the appellant's conviction for the brutal killing of five family members, including his wife, children, and sister-in-law. Although the conviction was upheld, the Apex Court revisited the sentencing, noting that the High Court did not fully evaluate mitigating circumstances including his mental health, socio-economic background, and potential for reformation. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, underscoring the importance of thorough sentencing analysis under evolving jurisprudence.

Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu – Criminal Appeal

n Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu, the Supreme Court addressed a criminal complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of IPC. The appellant company challenged the summoning order issued by the Trial Court. The Court scrutinized the evidence, the complainant’s affidavit, and procedural propriety. It found the allegations vague and lacking substantive material to implicate the company and its officers. The Apex Court held that mere designation of a person as a company officer does not justify prosecution without specific allegations. The appeal was allowed, and the summoning orders were quashed.

Jai Prakash vs. The State of Uttarakhand – Criminal Appeal

In Jai Prakash vs. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court dealt with a grievous crime involving the sexual assault and murder of a 10-year-old girl. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the High Court. The Apex Court upheld the conviction based on credible evidence, including last seen testimony and DNA findings. However, it commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission, noting the lack of detailed analysis of mitigating circumstances and the rule that brutality alone doesn't justify capital punishment.

Mala Devi vs. Union of India & Ors.

In the landmark case of Mala Devi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railway employee's widow seeking family pension. The deceased, Shri Om Prakash Maharaj, worked continuously for over 9 years in the Railways as a substitute employee before dying in harness. Both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had denied pension benefits citing lack of regularization and minimum service of 10 years. The Supreme Court overruled these decisions, holding that Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 allows pension benefits to temporary employees with at least one year of continuous service. The Court directed payment of arrears and regular pension, plus ex gratia relief of Rs. 5 lakhs under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Parasram & Ors.

In Suresh Chandra (Deceased) vs. Parasram, the Supreme Court dealt with the legal implications of failing to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased co-appellant in a second appeal. The High Court had dismissed the appeal due to abatement caused by non-substitution. The Court rejected the appellants' plea for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of diligent procedural conduct. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order and reinforcing procedural rigour in civil appeals.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Usha Devi & Ors.

In The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Usha Devi & Ors., the Supreme Court partially allowed two appeals filed by insurance companies challenging the High Court’s order awarding Rs.15,00,000/- compensation to the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, a truck driver, died in a collision involving two vehicles. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for lack of negligence evidence. The High Court reversed this, which was partly set aside by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court recalculated compensation as per the Second Schedule of the Act, holding that negligence is irrelevant under Section 163A and awarded Rs.4,77,839/- with 8% interest, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending dumper truck.

Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Parasram & Ors.

In Suresh Chandra (Deceased) vs. Parasram, the Supreme Court dealt with the legal implications of failing to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased co-appellant in a second appeal. The High Court had dismissed the appeal due to abatement caused by non-substitution. The Court rejected the appellants' plea for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of diligent procedural conduct. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order and reinforcing procedural rigour in civil appeals.

Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

In Sanju Bai Prajapati vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., the Supreme Court reversed a High Court ruling that had denied compensation to the widow and minor children of a deceased accident victim. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 46,29,152/- based on credible eyewitness testimony and valid documentation. The High Court, however, questioned the delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the witness statement. The Supreme Court held that the FIR delay was explained by the Murg report filed on the same day, and that the High Court had unjustly discredited the witness. The order of the High Court was set aside, and compensation reinstated. (Drafted Summary)

Madhukar & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

In Madhukar vs. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court examined whether criminal proceedings under serious IPC sections, including Section 376, could be quashed based on a settlement between parties. The case involved two FIRs: one for assault by a group (including Madhukar) and another against Prabhakar for sexual offences. The complainant later expressed a strong desire not to pursue the case, citing her current stable married life and psychological distress from ongoing litigation. The Court, recognizing the exceptional circumstances and lack of prosecutorial support from the complainant, quashed both FIRs to prevent misuse of judicial process and unnecessary trauma to the parties involved. (Drafted Summary)

BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited

In BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited, the Supreme Court addressed whether Clause 13 of a contract constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11, citing Clause 13. The High Court rejected the plea, emphasizing the conditional language "may be sought" in the clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Clause 13 merely offered a possibility for arbitration, requiring further mutual consent, and did not amount to a binding arbitration agreement. The Court reiterated the scope of judicial review under Section 11 is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. (Drafted Summary)

Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya

In Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. Despite the dismissal of the divorce petition by both the Family Court and the High Court, the Supreme Court found that the prolonged separation of over 16 years, failed reconciliation efforts, and the lack of emotional or physical cohabitation demonstrated a dead marital bond. The Court observed that compelling the couple to remain legally bound would serve no beneficial purpose. The Court also enhanced the monthly maintenance to be paid by the husband to Rs. 15,000, taking into account the responsibilities of the homemaker wife and the welfare of the minor child. (Drafted Summary)

Baljinder Kumar @ Kala vs. State of Punjab – Criminal Appeal

This Supreme Court judgment in Baljinder Kumar @ Kala vs. State of Punjab deals with the reversal of a conviction and death sentence under Section 302 IPC. The case involved the tragic death of four individuals, including two children, and severe injuries to others. The conviction was based primarily on eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and recovery of weapons. However, upon close scrutiny, the Supreme Court found major inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the failure to prove motive beyond doubt, and procedural lapses in investigation. The Court ruled that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. This judgment reasserts the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in death penalty cases. (Drafted summary)

Communidade of Tivim, Tivim, Bardez-Goa vs. State of Goa & Ors. (Civil Appeal)

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which had affirmed the Administrative Tribunal's refusal to permit the Communidade of Tivim to enter into a compromise regarding tenancy rights. The Court held that the consent terms proposed by the Communidade were in violation of statutory provisions under the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, as they effectively transferred ownership rights and enabled non-agricultural use of land. The Court emphasized that statutory compliance and legal integrity cannot be overridden by private agreements.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Niru @ Niharika (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION -CIVIL)

The Supreme Court dismissed two SLPs filed by The Oriental Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident claim. The Court upheld the High Court’s and Tribunal’s findings on negligence, multiplier, future prospects, and interest rate. It rejected the insurer’s argument that interest should not be granted on the future prospects component and reaffirmed the entitlement of minor dependents to full compensation despite remarriage of the widow.

Orissa High Court vs. Banshidhar Baug (CIVIL APPEAL)

The judgment addresses the legality of the Orissa High Court’s administrative decision to deny regularization of a daily wage employee. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court’s Single and Division Benches, holding that the respondent had no legal entitlement to regularization as his appointment was not in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that sympathy cannot replace legality in service matters.

Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed under Sections 60(b), 316(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against Shailesh Kumar Singh, co-founder of a film production company. The FIR was based on a commercial dispute regarding a failed business deal. The Court ruled that criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes and criticized the High Court for directing mediation upon a monetary deposit without first evaluating the legality of the FIR. The Court held that no prima facie case of cheating or breach of trust was made out.

Arifa vs. Abhiman Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd – CIVIL APPEAL

This judgment concerns the legality of cancellation of a flat allotment by a housing co-operative society. The appellant, Arifa, was allotted a flat which was later canceled due to non-payment. The Supreme Court noted that the payment had already been made and that there was no legal basis for the cancellation. The Court set aside the High Court and Trial Court decisions, restoring the appellant’s rights.

Meena (Dead) Through LRs vs. Prayagraj – CIVIL APPEAL

The case pertains to the right of a daughter to inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts that had denied the appellant’s claim based on procedural delays. The Court emphasized the substantive right of a daughter to inherit and held that technicalities should not defeat the intent of the law. The matter was remanded for trial.

Umedraj Jain vs. V. Sudarsanan – CIVIL APPEAL

The case arose from a suit for money recovery based on a mortgage through title deeds. The appellant, who had purchased the mortgaged property pending litigation, challenged subsequent enforcement actions against him. After prolonged litigation and partial payments, the Supreme Court settled the matter by modifying the High Court’s order, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 15 lakhs in full and final settlement. The ruling emphasized practical resolution in long-pending litigation without creating precedent.

Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr. – CIVIL APPEAL

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether a suit can be dismissed as barred by res judicata under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the plaintiff was not a party to the previous proceedings. The Court ruled that such a determination requires detailed analysis of prior pleadings and cannot be summarily decided at the stage of rejecting the plaint. The order of the High Court and the Trial Court rejecting the plaint was set aside, restoring the suit for full trial.

Dhanasingh Prabhu vs. Chandrasekar – CIVIL APPEAL

This judgment revolves around the validity of a Will allegedly executed by one Kannan in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment which dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession. The Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the Will had not been proved as required under the Indian Evidence Act and Succession Act. The decision reinforces the evidentiary threshold required for proving testamentary documents and the limitations of revisiting concurrent findings of fact.

Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR vs. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Another – CIVIL APPEAL

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether the plaintiff (Jagir Kaur) successfully proved ownership of the disputed land. The Court held that the findings of the First Appellate Court, which denied relief due to lack of credible evidence, were correct and ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. The High Court had erred in reversing findings of fact without identifying any perversity or substantial question of law. This case reinforces judicial discipline in second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC.

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Nirmala Devi – CIVIL APPEAL

The Supreme Court held that cancellation of a residential plot allotment by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on grounds of non-payment must be preceded by adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, in line with principles of natural justice. The Court affirmed the High Court's setting aside of the cancellation due to lack of personal service and absence of fair hearing. The Estate Officer failed to notify the allottee effectively and did not properly consider her request for time extension based on her husband's illness. The case reinforces that administrative actions must adhere to procedural fairness.

Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. Arvind Kumar – CIVIL APPEAL

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether an eviction decree based on a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is valid when the notice sent via Registered Post is returned with an endorsement "ND" (Not Delivered). The Court ruled that such notice satisfies the requirement of "deemed service" under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The High Court had erred in reversing the Trial Court's eviction decree by misinterpreting postal endorsement. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for deemed service and restricts unwarranted interference in second appellate/revisional jurisdiction where procedural fairness has not been compromised.

M/s Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai – CIVIL APPEAL

The core legal issue in this appeal is whether time-barred claims can be entertained in conciliation and arbitration under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) but held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2). Consequently, time-barred claims can be discussed and settled during conciliation, but cannot be the basis of arbitration awards. The Court harmonized the provisions of the MSMED Act, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Limitation Act to ensure clarity and consistency in the law governing delayed payments to micro and small enterprises.

G. Mohandas vs The State of Kerala & Ors.- Criminal Appeal

In G. Mohandas vs The State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings against a private building owner accused of conspiring with municipal officials to construct a four-storey commercial building in a prohibited zone under the guise of renovation. Despite obtaining a renovation permit, Mohandas demolished the old building and constructed a new one in violation of rules. The Court held that the act was part of a calculated conspiracy involving misuse of permits and deliberate defiance of stop memos. It dismissed Mohandas’s appeal to quash proceedings and emphasized that regularisation does not erase criminality.

Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors. (Civil Appeal)

In Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors., the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the daughters of a Scheduled Tribe woman seeking partition in ancestral property. The trial and appellate courts had denied them the claim, holding that no custom supporting female succession had been proved. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that in absence of any proven custom to the contrary, the principles of justice, equity and good conscience—preserved under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875—must prevail. It emphasized that denial of inheritance to female heirs, without lawful justification, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Shubha @ Subhashankar vs State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal)

In Shubha @ Subhashankar vs State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court modified a conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I, considering the absence of premeditation and the spontaneous nature of the fatal blow inflicted during a heated quarrel. The appellant, provoked by the deceased's harassment of his sister, used a knife to stab the deceased once, leading to death. The Court emphasized that culpable homicide without intent to cause death falls under Section 304 Part I, not murder under Section 302. The sentence was reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Kaushal Singh vs The State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal)

In Kaushal Singh vs The State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court expunged strictures made by the Rajasthan High Court against a serving Judicial Officer who had granted bail in a criminal case while acting as a Link Officer. The High Court had passed adverse remarks without offering the officer an opportunity to be heard, criticizing him for ignoring criminal antecedents and judicial guidelines. The Supreme Court held that such remarks violate principles of natural justice and can severely affect a judicial officer's career. The Court emphasized the need for restraint in personal criticism within judicial orders and urged High Courts to consider adopting disclosure norms in bail applications regarding prior criminal records.

Suresh Jatav vs Sukhendra Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal -Motor Accident Compensation)

In Suresh Jatav vs Sukhendra Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court allowed the claimant’s appeal in a motor accident compensation case and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 7,19,480. The appellant, a skilled mason, suffered a compound leg fracture and arm fracture, leading to long-term disability. The Court held that the lower courts had erroneously undervalued the income, degree of disability, and future loss. The Supreme Court accepted expert medical testimony and reaffirmed that assessments of disability should not be based on conjecture but medical evidence.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors. (Civil – SLP)

In Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed IOCL’s challenge against the High Court's order to continue kerosene supplies to a long-standing dealer firm after the death of one partner. The Court held that the dealership could not be discontinued arbitrarily as the partnership deed allowed continuity with surviving partners. IOCL's insistence that all legal heirs join the firm was deemed contrary to its own guidelines and the law. The Court reaffirmed the principle that government entities must act fairly and not hinder commercial continuity unnecessarily.

Kathyayini vs Sri Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. (Criminal Appeal)

In Kathyayini vs Sri Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors., the Supreme Court reinstated criminal proceedings against two respondents accused of cheating and conspiracy to fraudulently acquire Rs. 33 crore in land compensation from Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation. The appellant, daughter of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, alleged exclusion from family tree and partition deed used to claim compensation without sharing with daughters. The Court held that the presence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution when prima facie cheating and forgery are established. This landmark ruling reinforces the distinction between civil and criminal liability, especially in family property fraud cases.

Birka Shiva vs The State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal)

In the case of Birka Shiva vs The State of Telangana, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376, 363, and 342 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and that the charges of rape, kidnapping, and wrongful confinement were not supported by credible evidence. The Court ruled that the absence of evidence corroborating the victim's age, coupled with voluntary cohabitation, negated the prosecution's claim of criminal acts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict evidentiary standards in criminal law and reaffirms that proof beyond reasonable doubt remains paramount.

Ramkirat Munilal Goud vs. State of Maharashtra (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who was on death row for over six years for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl, calling the police investigation "shabby and perfunctory." The Court found that the entire case against the man was built on weak and unreliable circumstantial evidence, including inconsistent witness statements and a doubtful confession. It criticized the police for "creating" witnesses to solve the case and the lower courts for their "overzealous" approach in convicting him. The man, who has already spent 12 years in jail, was ordered to be released immediately.

The State of Kerala and Ors. vs. The Principal, KMCT Medical College and Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has resolved a major dispute over medical college fees in Kerala. The state government had tried to create a central fund to help poor students by taking a portion of the higher fees paid by NRI students. The Court ruled this was illegal because there was no law to support it. However, it did not order a refund to the NRI students. Instead, the Court directed that the extra money collected should be returned to the individual private colleges. These colleges must now act as "trustees" of this money and use it to provide scholarships and subsidized education to the BPL students enrolled in their own institutions.

Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the stringent Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act against a man, calling the case an "abuse of the process of law." The Court found that the police had wrongly applied the Act, as the underlying cases were mainly about financial fraud and did not involve the kind of violence or threat required by the law. More importantly, the Court slammed the authorities for their "casual and cavalier" approach, noting that the official approval for the case was given by simply signing a pre-printed form without any real application of mind or following mandatory procedures.

Dr. Vimal Sukumar vs. D. Lawrence & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has stepped in to resolve a major leadership dispute within the Church of South India (CSI). The Court ruled that the election of the Church's head, the Moderator, was invalid because it was based on constitutional amendments that were not properly approved. However, the elections of other key office bearers were upheld. The Court cancelled the High Court's decision to appoint a committee to oversee all elections. Instead, it confirmed the appointment of a retired judge to conduct a fresh, fair election only for the post of Moderator. This judgment aims to restore proper governance while ensuring the day-to-day functioning of the Church continues.

Gopal Dikshit vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has sided with a homeowner whose insurance claim for a flooded basement was rejected. The insurance company denied the claim, blaming "seepage" (a slow leak) instead of "flooding" from heavy rain, which was covered by the policy. The company based its decision on a second, delayed inspection report. The Supreme Court found this unacceptable, noting that the first, immediate report had clearly identified flooding from heavy rain as the cause. The Court called the second report arbitrary and unreliable, set aside the rejection, and sent the case back to the National Consumer Commission to calculate the compensation owed.

Hakim vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (with Umesh vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.) (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has upheld the convictions of a father and son for a 2014 acid attack. While the son, an advocate who threw the acid, will serve a life sentence, the Court has reduced the father's life sentence to 10 years. The father, Hakim, who is over 70 and seriously ill, was shown leniency due to his age and health. The Court stated that his role was limited to holding the victim, similar to another accused who received a 10-year sentence. However, for the son, Umesh, the Court showed no mercy, emphasizing that as a lawyer, he had a greater responsibility to uphold the law.

Muruganandam vs. Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that an unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell property can be used as evidence in a lawsuit for specific performance. A man was prevented by lower courts from submitting such a document in his case. The Supreme Court overturned these decisions, explaining that while the document can't prove a completed sale, it can be used to prove the existence of the contract itself or an oral agreement to sell. The Court allowed the document to be placed on record, clearing the way for it to be considered in the trial.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam vs. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

Issue for Consideration: Whether a trial court, at the stage of considering discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, can look into and rely upon documents produced by the accused in their defence, or if its consideration is strictly limited to the material filed by the prosecution along with the chargesheet.

Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute vs. Shweta Kabra and Others Etc. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that a new, lower fee structure set for a dental college cannot be applied to students from previous academic years. The Chhattisgarh Dental College had charged a higher fee to students admitted in 2003-04 and 2004-05. A fee committee later fixed a lower fee of ₹1.25 lakh per year, but only from the 2005-06 session onwards. The High Court had ordered the college to refund the extra fees to the older batches. The Supreme Court overturned this, stating that the new fee structure was not meant to be retrospective. The college is now allowed to recover the refunded amount by encashing the bank guarantees provided by the students.

NDA Securities Ltd. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has reversed a Delhi High Court order that allowed the release of ₹15.90 lakhs to a company involved in a fraudulent share sale. The funds were frozen during a criminal investigation into the fraud. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court overstepped its authority by ordering the release of money while the investigation was still active and a main accused was on the run. The Court stated that releasing the funds would harm the victim and obstruct the investigation, and ordered the money to remain with the Bombay Stock Exchange until the trial is complete.

P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction of a woman for helping her husband hide wealth he acquired through corruption. Her husband, a public servant, was found to have assets far beyond his legal income, and many of these assets were in his wife's name. The Court ruled that by allowing her name to be used to hold these properties, she was actively involved in concealing the crime. This act of "aiding" makes her guilty of abetment under anti-corruption laws. The Court dismissed her appeal and ordered her to surrender to serve her one-year prison sentence.

Tata Mohan Rao vs. S. Venkateswarlu and Others Etc. (CIVIL APPEAL – Contempt of Court)

The Supreme Court has punished a government officer (Tehsildar) for contempt after he demolished people's homes despite a High Court order protecting them. While the Court called his actions "inhumane," it decided against sending him to jail to protect his family from suffering the consequences of his dismissal from service. Instead, the officer was demoted from his current rank of Deputy Collector back to Tehsildar and was ordered to pay a hefty fine of ₹1 lakh. The ruling emphasizes that no one is above the law, especially public servants.

A. Raja vs. D. Kumar (CIVIL APPEAL – Election Petition)

The Supreme Court has restored the election of MLA A. Raja, whose victory from the reserved Devikulam constituency was cancelled by the Kerala High Court. The High Court had ruled that he was not eligible for the Scheduled Caste seat. The Supreme Court overturned this, establishing a crucial legal principle: the validity of a caste certificate cannot be questioned in an election petition. Such challenges must go through the dedicated state-level Scrutiny Committee. The Court also found that the evidence claiming Raja was a Christian was weak and insufficient to disqualify him.

M. Seetharama @ Seetharama Gowda vs. The Manager Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court has increased the compensation for a 38-year-old man who lost part of his foot in a 2015 road accident. The Court found the amount awarded by the High Court (₹12.65 lakh) was too low. It raised his assumed monthly income to ₹10,000, added an amount for future career growth, and increased the compensation for his pain and suffering. The final revised compensation stands at ₹17,06,486, highlighting the need for courts to award fair and just compensation in accident cases.

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts should not interfere with orders from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) when a dedicated appeals body, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), is available. The case involved CERC allowing PGCIL to seek compensation from MPPTCL for project delays. Instead of appealing to APTEL, MPPTCL went to the High Court. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to hear the case, clarifying that CERC has the authority to issue such orders to fill regulatory gaps, and any challenge must first go through the proper statutory channel of appeal.

Paritala Sudhakar vs. State of Telangana (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court acquitted a 70-year-old retired Revenue Inspector of bribery charges, overturning his conviction by the lower courts. The Court found the prosecution's case to be full of contradictions and lacking credible evidence. Crucially, the standard chemical test on the accused's hands proved negative, and the story of how the bribe money was recovered was inconsistent. Citing these serious doubts, the Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and allowed the appeal.

Jitender @ Kalla vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL; WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

The Supreme Court has overhauled the process for appointing "Senior Advocates," a prestigious title for lawyers. The Court has scrapped the existing 100-point marking system, which included an interview, calling it flawed and subjective. Instead, the final decision will now be made by a vote of all the judges of the respective High Court or the Supreme Court. This change aims to make the process more transparent, fair, and inclusive, ensuring that deserving lawyers from all backgrounds, including those from trial courts, get a fair chance.

Disha Kapoor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed a wife's petition, upholding a High Court order that had quashed her criminal case against her husband and in-laws for dowry harassment. The Court found her allegations to be vague, inconsistent, and a "clear abuse of the legal process." It noted that while she claimed severe physical and mental torture, she had also stated in another court document that their relationship was "cordial and smooth" during the same period. This decision highlights the courts' role in preventing the misuse of dowry laws.

Krishan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ordered equal compensation for landowners from two adjacent villages in Haryana whose lands were acquired for a township. The High Court had awarded a lower amount to the landowners of Kukrola village compared to the neighboring Fazalwas village, despite the lands being similar. The Supreme Court corrected this disparity, stating that it was unfair to pay different rates for lands with similar potential. It increased the compensation for the affected landowners in Kukrola to match the higher rate of ₹1.21 crore per acre.

M/s Gayatri Project Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited (CIVIL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot challenge an arbitration award on the grounds of "wrong jurisdiction" if you did not raise that objection during the arbitration process itself. In a dispute involving a Madhya Pradesh government contract, a company participated in arbitration under the central law without protest. After losing, it tried to get the award cancelled by claiming a special state law should have been used. The Supreme Court said this was not allowed and that parties must raise such objections at the earliest stage.

Gyan Prakash vs. Union of India & Ors (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

The Supreme Court has taken up the issue of safety on National Highways, noting the high number of deaths in road accidents. In a public interest case, the Court found that the law meant to keep highways clear of encroachments is not being properly enforced. To fix this, the Court has ordered the government to set up regular inspection teams, create a mobile app and a public portal for citizens to report encroachments, and ensure that prompt action is taken to keep the highways safe.

Rajendra Anant Varik vs. Govind B. Prabhugaonkar (CRIMINAL APPEAL)

The Supreme Court acquitted a person who was convicted in a cheque bounce case. The Court noted that the High Court had overlooked a key defence: the person who filed the case was allegedly an unlicensed money-lender, which is illegal in Goa. Since the accused had already paid the full cheque amount along with the fine, the Supreme Court used its special powers to close the case and acquit him, ensuring a fair end to the dispute.

Old Jalukai Village Council vs. Kakiho Village & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has intervened in a dispute over the creation of a new village in Nagaland. The High Court had ordered the state to officially recognize the new village, but an older, neighboring village objected, claiming the new village was on its ancestral land. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's order, emphasizing that Nagaland's unique customary laws, which require a 'No Objection Certificate' from the parent village, must be respected. The Court has now directed the state to reconsider the matter after hearing all objections.

Hansura Bai & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has ordered a CBI investigation into the death of a young man in police custody in Madhya Pradesh. The Court found that the local police, who were themselves the accused, could not conduct a fair investigation. It also noted that the only eyewitness to the incident was being harassed with multiple false cases. To ensure justice, the Court transferred the case to the CBI and directed that the eyewitness be given police protection.

Arabian Exports Private Limited vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (CIVIL APPEAL) Supreme Court of India Judgment

The central issue is whether a dispute raised by an insured party, after signing a full and final discharge voucher in favour of the insurer, can still be referred to arbitration. The Court had to determine if the signing of such a voucher under alleged financial duress and coercion extinguishes the arbitration agreement or if the dispute regarding the validity of the discharge itself is arbitrable.

Lt. Col NK Ghai (Retd.) vs. Union of India and Another (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has given a retired Army officer a fresh chance at promotion. The officer, Lt. Col. NK Ghai, was repeatedly denied promotion to the rank of Colonel. The Court found that another officer in a similar situation had his case reconsidered and was promoted. To ensure fairness, the Court has now directed the Chief of Army Staff to reconsider Lt. Col. Ghai's case as well, and if he is found fit, to grant him the promotion with all associated benefits.

Nagam Janardhan Reddy vs. State of Telangana & Others (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION-CIVIL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged fraud and corruption in the revision of cost estimates for the Palamuru Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRRLIS). The petitioner sought a declaration that the revision of estimates was illegal and prayed for a CBI investigation. The Court had to decide if there was any reason to interfere with the High Court's discretionary decision to not entertain the PIL.

State of Kerala & Another vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. & Others (CIVIL APPEAL; WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)) Supreme Court of India Judgment

The Supreme Court has ruled that DTH operators like Tata Play are liable to pay both service tax to the Central Government and entertainment tax to State Governments. The Court explained that providing a DTH service has two different aspects: the "service" of broadcasting and the "entertainment" you receive. Since these are two distinct aspects, both the Centre and the States have the power to tax their respective parts of the same activity. This judgment settles a major tax dispute and confirms the power of states to levy entertainment tax on DTH services.

Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs vs. S.V. Ranganath and Ors. (CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court took a firm stand against government officials who had wilfully disobeyed its orders for over a decade in a land acquisition case. The officials were supposed to issue compensation in the form of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) but kept delaying. After finding them guilty of contempt, the Court rejected their further attempts to stall the process. It ordered the immediate release of the TDRs to the rightful owners, ensuring that the court's authority is respected and its orders are implemented without delay.

M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue is whether a commercial suit filed after the enactment of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, but before the Supreme Court's declaration of its mandatory nature in Patil Automation, should be rejected for non-compliance with the pre-institution mediation requirement, or if it can be kept in abeyance to allow the parties to undergo mediation.

Kalyani Transco vs. M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is the legality and validity of the resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL), which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the resolution process complied with the mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had acted within its jurisdiction while modifying the approved plan and dealing with related issues, such as the attachment of assets by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue is whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court had to determine if the plaint, on its face, failed to disclose a valid cause of action, particularly concerning the execution of sale deeds by a person whose power of attorney had already been revoked.

Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and Ors. vs. State of Bihar. (CRIMINAL APPEAL) -Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issues for consideration were, Whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained when the trial court failed to properly examine them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by not putting the specific incriminating circumstances to them. Whether the conviction of appellant No. 3 was valid, given that he was a juvenile at the time the offence was committed.

Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs vs. S.V. Ranganath and Ors. (CONTEMPT PETITION)-Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is the wilful disobedience and non-compliance by government officials (the contemnors) with the Supreme Court's orders regarding the issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) as compensation for acquired land. The Court had to decide whether the contemnors had purged their contempt by depositing the TDRs and whether the fresh objections raised by the State to delay the release of these TDRs were maintainable.

K.R. Suresh vs. R. Poornima & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue for consideration is whether the appellant (original plaintiff) is entitled to a refund of the advance money of ₹20,00,000 paid towards an agreement to sell, after he failed to pay the balance consideration and the agreement was terminated by the sellers. This involves determining the validity of the forfeiture of the advance money and interpreting the law on seeking alternative relief for a refund under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Prasannatma Das vs. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (Dead) and Others. (CIVIL APPEAL)-Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration : The central issue revolves around the ownership and control of the ISKCON temple and its properties in Bangalore. The Court had to determine which of the two rival societies—ISKCON Mumbai (the parent society) or ISKCON Bangalore (a locally registered society)—was the rightful owner of the properties. This involved examining the validity of the registration of ISKCON Bangalore, the legitimacy of its governing body, and the nature of the property allotment made by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

Maya P.C. & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is whether the State Government can, through a subsequent Government Order (G.O.), withdraw service benefits like seniority, probation, and promotion from persons with disabilities who were already regularized in service against supernumerary posts under a previous G.O. The Court had to determine if denying these benefits, after the employees had been given a "regular appointment," was discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL) – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is whether the High Court was correct in upholding the dismissal of the appellant's partition suit by the Single Judge under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The Court had to determine if the suit was maintainable in light of previous decrees and admissions made by the parties in earlier litigations concerning the same properties, and whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action for a fresh partition.

R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.(CIVIL APPEAL)-Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The central issue is the legality and constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955. This amendment granted en bloc seniority to in-service candidates (departmental quota) over more meritorious direct recruits selected from the open market in the same recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Court had to determine if this preferential treatment, which overturned seniority based on merit, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Chetan vs. The State of Karnataka (CRIMINAL APPEAL)-Supreme Court of India Judgment

Issue for Consideration: The primary issue for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant for murder, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, can be sustained. The Court had to determine if the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution was complete and conclusive enough to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly focusing on the “last seen together” theory, the recovery of the weapon, and the forensic evidence.

Disclaimer – Judgment Review

The content produced by Karma AI is intended solely for informational use and should not be submitted, cited, or relied upon in any legal proceedings or court hearings.