Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgments

Index Search [1950 – 2018]

[APRIL 2019]


State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Chandra Nandi – Reasoned Order- Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion.

See More Judgments

[MARCH 2019]


Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India through Secretary & Another –Removing the name of an Advocate – suppressing the fact at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council pertains to being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and involvement in a criminal case and Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue an applicant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation.

See More Judgments



Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Common Intention- Murder-There cannot be a universal rule in laying down the principles of existence of common intention of prior meeting or meetings with pre­ arranged plan. It has to be proved either from the conduct or circumstances of any incriminating facts which is missing in the instant case.

G. Ratna Raj (D) by LRS. Vs. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd. & ANR EX PARTY PROCEEDING AND DECREE – If the defendants had remained absent (as has happened in this case) on that date and if it would have noticed that they had adduced the evidence either fully or substantially prior to the date on which they were proceeded ex parte, the Court could have invoked its powers under Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code treating the defendants as “present” on that day for passing appropriate orders in the suit. Such is, however, again not the case here.

Asharfi Devi (D) through LRS. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Review Jurisdiction- once the finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Md. Samim Azad Writ petition-Railway Contract – In view of the expiry of the contract of his late father in the year 2010, the respondent cannot claim as an heir of contractor for giving preference, as pleaded by him. In any event, we are of the view that no right of the writ petitioner, much less any fundamental right, is violated so as to seek directions for his appointment as a halt contractor as granted by the Division Bench of the High Court.

[JANUARY 2019]


Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan– Circumstantial Evidence – It has been propounded that while scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a Court has to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused.

Alok Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India & ANR.-CBI– Selection and transfer etc of the CBI Director shall be made by the Selection Committee only.

State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.- Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could very well be maintainable.

Government of Haryana PWD Haryana (B&R) Branch Vs. M/s. G.F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.- Appointment of Arbitrator -The objection of reasonable apprehension of bias raised was wholly unjustified and unsubstantiated, particularly since the nominee arbitrator was a former employee of the State over 10 years ago. This would not disqualify him from act as an arbitrator. Mere allegations of bias are not a ground for removal of an arbitrator.

Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd. Vs. Workman Pratap SinghIndustrial dispute– There lies a distinction between the expression ’employment’ and ‘regularization of the service”. The expression ’employment’ signifies a fresh employment to fill the vacancies whereas the expression ‘regularization of the service’ signifies that the employee, who is already in service, his services are regularized as per service regulations.

Pages: 1 2

Categories: Supreme Court

Tagged as: