Alphabetical List of Supreme Court Judgments with Headnotes

List of Overruled Cases

Notable Judgments Delivered by Indian Supreme Court

  • A. Geetha vs State of Tamil Nadu and ANR-04/09/2006 - Writ of Habeas corpus dismissed-Penal Code, 1860—Section 366—Kidnapping and inducing woman—Detenu procuring innocent poor girls and under guise of employment forcing them into prostitution—Detenue declared ‘immoral traffic offender’ and detained under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982—All representations submitted by detenu were placed before Advisory Board as well as before Government, which were duly considered and rejected—Subjective satisfaction of authorities to detain detenu cannot be interfered with
  • A. K. Gopalan Versus State of Madras 19/5/1950 - Keywords-Due process of Law-Procedure established by Law⇔ Under our Constitution, our life and personal liberty are balanced by restrictions on the rights of the citizens as laid down in Art. 19 and […]
  • A. N. Roy Commissioner of Police and ANOTHER Vs Suresh Sham Singh-04/07/2006 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 20—Executive Magistrate—Appointment of Police Commissioner as Executive Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to deal with problem of trafficking of minor girls and women in metropolitan city of Bombay—By impugned order High Court set aside the eviction of respondent holding that notification does not empower Commissioner of Police to assume jurisdiction of District Magistrate—status quo ante ordered to be maintained till appointment of Commissioner of Police as Additional District Magistrate
  • A.R. Antulay Versus R.S. Naik and others-29/10/1986 - The Supreme Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. and has no power to transfer the case from the Court of Special Judge to the High Court for speedier trial
  • A.V. Subramanian Vs. Union of India and ANR- 10/01/2017 - In a land acquisition case the claimants have received different amounts by way of compensation and that too in respect of the lands of same nature covered by the same notification and acquired for the same purpose
  • Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.
  • Abhijit Das Vs. State of Tripura-20/01/2019 - The sentence is altered to the period already undergone SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Act: Section 324 IPC [Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2017 @ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 9253 of 2014] […]
  • Abhinandan Jha and others Vs Dinesh Mishra-17/04/1967 - It will be seen that the Code, as such does not use the expression ‘charge-sheet’ or ‘final report’. But is understood in the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report by the police, filed under Section 170 of the Code, is referred to as a ‘charge-sheet’. But in respect of the reports sent under Section 169 i. e., when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, it is termed variously, in different States, as either ‘referred charge’, ‘final report’, or ‘Summary’.
  • ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Vs. H.M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY – 21/08/1970 - In a civil proceeding the decision of a criminal court is not res judicata. To give an example, if a person is involved in a traffic offence in which some one is injured he may in the criminal court receive a light sentence but if he is sued in a civil court for heavy damages he can plead and prove that he was not negligent or that accident was due to the contributory negligence of the defendant. The decision of the criminal court would not preclude him from raising this issue before the civil court.
  • ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-27/08/2013 - A large crowd gathered in the court premises caused a great deal of inconvenience, as a result of which, scuffle ensued between advocates, police and media persons and simultaneously violence broke out […]
  • AFCONs Infrastructure Ltd. and AnOTHER Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and OTHERS 26/ 7/2010 - A civil court exercising power under Section 89 CPC cannot refer a suit to arbitration unless all the parties to the suit agree to such reference. If the reference is to arbitration or conciliation, the court has to record that the reference is by mutual consent. If the reference is to any other non-adjudicatory ADR process, the court should briefly record the same.
  • Aftaruddin (D) represented through LRS. Vs. Ramkrishna Datta @ Babul Datta & Ors. 8/12/2017 - A “raiyat” has been defined in Section 2(s) of the TLR & LR Act to mean a person who owns land for purposes of agriculture, paying land revenue to the Government; and […]
  • Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors-27/11/2017 - It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
  • Agra Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Anil David and Ors-19/02/2020 - Concept of "market value" - a wider concept in other contexts, was deemed to be referrable to one or other modes of determining the value under sub clauses (v), (va) or (vb) of Section 7 (iv-A).
  • Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors-5/2/2018 - y means of this application, the applicant, who is practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared by this Court.
  • Ajayinder Sangwan vs Bar Council Of Delhi-23/8/2017 - The respective State Bar Councils shall publish a Final Electoral Roll by including the names and particulars of such advocates whose degrees attached with the application forms have been verified by the concerned University authorities. The names of all such advocates who have not removed the defects in the application forms already submitted within the specified time and also such persons whose degrees on verification have been found false or fake by the University authorities shall not be included in the Electoral Rolls.
  • Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State of Jharkhand and Another Respondent-18/03/2009. - Difference between Proceeding instituted on Police report and Proceeding instituted otherwise than police report
  • AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020 - The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited.Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
  • Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors.-1/5/2018 - Section 37 provides that the Special Court shall try cases in camera and in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence; Section 36 casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence while at the same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement of the child and communicate with his advocate.
  • ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS – 08/02/2001 - The Shetty Commission has recommended assured career progressive scheme and functional scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a judicial officer does not feel that he is stagnated, there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.
  • ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-23/4/1965 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J; V. Ramaswami, J; M. Hidayatullah, J; K. N. Wanchoo, J ) ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. […]
  • Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs State of West Bengal-11/11/2009 - Penal Code, 1860—Section 306 read with Section 107—abetment of suicide—In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commission of suicide—Act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306—Merely on allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to time of occurrence on the part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. Error! No text of specified style in document. vs. Error! No text of specified style in document.
  • Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and others Versus Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara -10/02/1961 - there was no legislative power for the levy of the tax and that consequently the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) are being violated.
  • Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others Vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another-3/5/2018 - An arbitration agreement means an agreement which is enforceable in law and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement. However, in a case where the parties alleged that the arbitration agreement is vitiated on account of fraud, the Court may refuse to refer the parties to arbitration.
  • AMIT SAHNI Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS-07/10/2020 - We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
  • Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd. vs Mahila Jagran Manch And Ors-20/01/1997 - Unless any law is violated, the Court ought not to interfere in such matters. These are not matters which can be judicially assessed and the pressure which the agitators bring to bear ought motto sway the Court into exercising jurisdiction.
  • Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.2/2/2017 - the scheme of Sections 154, 157 and 173 in particular of the Cr.P.C and the pattern of consequences to follow in the two contingencies referred to herein above, this Court propounded that in case the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
  • Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India through Secretary & Another-1/3/2019 - 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.
  • Anu Bhanvara etc. Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors- 9/8/2019 - Adequate compensation – which of the respondents, that is the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation-since the claimants were gratuitous passengers […]
  • Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019 - Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners' plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.
  • APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD VS SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS & ORS- 14/2/2020 - Section 138 of the N.I-It appears that both, the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act.
  • ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-9/10/2017 -   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Date: October 09, 2017. Bench : (A.K. SIKRI) (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) (ASHOK BHUSHAN) IA NO. 92862 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 728 OF 2015 W I T […]
  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision  - Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others-30/09/2019-The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision under the UP Reservation Act, 1994.
  • Aruna Oswal vs Pankaj Oswal & ors-06/07/2020 - the proceedings before the NCLT filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act should not be entertained because of the pending civil dispute and considering the minuscule extent of holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired after filing a civil suit in company securities, of respondent no. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in order to maintain the proceedings, the respondent should have waited for the decision of the right, title and interest, in the civil suit concerning shares in question.
  • Asgar & Ors. Vs. Mohan Varma & Ors-05/02/2019 - An issue which the appellants might and ought to have asserted in the earlier round of proceedings is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The High Court was, in this view of the matter, entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that the failure of the appellants to raise a claim would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.
  • Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19 - Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
  • Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Versus Union of India and others-04/04/1989 - constitutional requirement of expeditious consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the Government as spelt out from Art. 22(5) of the Constitution
  • Assam Public Works Vs. Union of India & Ors. 13/08/ 2019 - The entire NRC exercise having been performed and the same cannot be now ordered to be reopened by initiation of a fresh exercise on certain other parameters that have been suggested on behalf of the intervenors/applicants on the strength of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.
  • Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs M/s. Ashok Saw Mill-16/07/2009 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Sections 13 and 17—Enforcement of security interest—Jurisdiction of DRT with regard to post 13(4) events—DRT is entitled to question the action taken by secured creditor and transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4)—DRT has been vested with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to borrower in appropriate cases—DRT has jurisdiction to deal with a post 13(4) situation—Action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even status quo ante can be restored by DRT. 
  • Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab-16/08/1982 - constitutional issues arising out of the challenge to the validity of the death penalty
  • Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India & ANR-11/09/2019 - Section 13 (13) SARFAESI Act-
  • Bal Thackeray Vs Prabhakar Kashinath Kunthe and Ors-11/12/1995 - Three speeches of Bal Thackeray amount to corrupt practice under sub-section (3), while the first speech is a corrupt practice also under sub-section (3A) of Section 123 of the R. P. Act.
  • BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs Union of India and others-10/12/2001 - No ex-parte relief by way of injunction or stay especially with respect to public projects and schemes or economic policies or schemes should be granted. It is only when the Court is […]
  • Balwinder Kaur Vs Hardeep Singh 18/11/1997 - Even where the Family Courts are not functioning, the objects and principles underlying the constitution of these Courts can be kept in view by the civil Courts trying matrimonial causes.
  • Bandhu Mahto (dead) by L.Rs. AND ANOTHER Vs Bhukhli Mahatain AND OTHERS-14/02/2007 - In view of this evidence on record, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the tenancy held by the defendants will be deemed as permanent tenancy and not tenancy-at-will as alleged by the plaintiffs.
  • Basavaraj R. Patil and others Vs State of Karnataka and others - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Examination of accused—Personal presence of accused—Whether can be dispensed with—Yes.
  • BENEDICT DENIS KINNY  VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020 - ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION-When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous.
  • BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd-10/12/2019 - ARBITRATION-whether the "seat" of the arbitration proceedings is New Delhi or Faridabad, consequent upon which a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be filed dependent on where the seat of arbitration is located.
  • Bhagwan Dutt Versus Smt. Kamla Devi and another-07/10/1974 - As the Magistrate is required to exercise that discretion in a just manner, the income of the wife, also, must be put in the scales of justice as against the means of the husband.
  • Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and another- 25/04/1985 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(1) and 157(1)- The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him.
  • Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020 - Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.
  • Bhagwati Prasad Sah and others Vs Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and another-07/05/1951 - Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 101 to 104—Burden of proof—Joint Hindu Family—Presumption of—A Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proved to the contrary—The burden of proving the status of the family is on the person claiming the relief on the basis of such status—It is a question to be determined in each case.
  • Bhagwati Prasad Versus Chandramaul- 19/10/1965 - If a party asks for a relief on a clear and specific ground, and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground is covered either directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said party to attempt to sustain the same claim on a ground which is entirely new.
  • Bhajan lal Versus State of Punjab and Others – 28/09/1970 - Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
  • BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019 - For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
  • Binod Kumar  Versus State of Jharkhand and Others – 29/03/2011 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 4, 45(1A), 43 and 44-The investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement Directorate, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Government under Section 45(1A) of the said Act.
  • Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Another- 22/02/2001 - Trial—Delay in proceeding-Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.
  • Birendra Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ANR – 08/05/19 - Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881-Issuance of successive notices is permissible under the provisions of Section 138-Condonation of Delay-The CJM condoned the delay on the cause which was shown by the appellant and it is evident that the appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of the delay in the institution of the complaint. 
  • Biswanath Agarwalla Vs Sabitri Bera and Ors Respondent – 04/08/2009 - court fees Act, 1870—Section 7(v)—Payment of court-fee—For obtaining a decree for recovery of possession, court-fees is required to be paid in terms of Section 7(v), according to value of subject-matter of suit.
  • Bombay High Court refused to quash FIR against Gautam Navlakha in Koregaon-Bhima violence - Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Navlakha seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him by the Pune police in January 2018 after the Elgar Parishad held on December 31, […]
  • Brajnandan Sinha Vs Jyoti Narain-08/11/1955 - Contempt Of Courts Act, 1952—Section 3—Court—MEANING of—Courts subordinate to High Court—MEANING of—Court of a quasi judicial tribunal created under Statute is not covered by the EXPRESSION ‘court’.
  • Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of WEST BENGAL – 02/07/1995 - Can the citizens of India residing in the State of West Bengal who are professing, practising or propagating the religious doctrines and teachings of Ramakrishna and have become his followers, claim to […]
  • BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019 - Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits.
  • C.R. NEELAKANDAN AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS-07/05/2014 - Tamil Nadu is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in para 40 (i) and (ii) of the suit. Consequently, it is declared that the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 passed by the Kerala legislature is unconstitutional in its application to and effect on the Mullaperiyar dam.
  • Canara Bank Vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & ANR-20/04/2018 - One well-known exception is that the doctrine cannot impart finality to an erroneous decision on the jurisdiction of a Court. Likewise, an erroneous judgment on a question of law, which sanctions something […]
  • Center for PIL and Others Versus Union of India and Others-11/04/2011 - In larger public interest, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution has been monitoring the investigation in a most comprehensive manner.
  • Central Bureau of Investigation & ANR. Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc-05/07/19 - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-the provisions of Article 32 do not specifically indicate who can move the court. In the absence of such a provision in that respect, it is plain that the petitioner may be anyone in whom the law has conferred power to maintain an action of such nature. It is open to anybody who is interested in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief.
  • Central Bureau of Investigation etc. Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & ANR. etc 25/09/2019 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION-The absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts, admittedly there is a sanction though the accused seek to pick holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered in the trial.
  • Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019 - RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
  • Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Versus Ashalata S. Guram-25/09/1986 - Statutory tenant is in the same position as a contractual tenant until the decree for eviction was passed against him and the rights of a contractual tenant included the right to create licence even if he was the transferor of an interest which was not in fact the transfer of interest.
  • Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.  Versus State of Punjab & Anr-14/2/2020 - Arbitration Award-an Award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decision reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires it to give reasons. In that light the learned advocate would point out that in the instant case the agreement between the parties would require that the learned Arbitrator has to assign reasons for the Award and when such requirement is stipulated the Award passed without reasons would not be sustainable being contrary to the explicit requirement in the contract between the parties.
  • CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN – 09/05/2014 - The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) […]
  • Chanmuniya Vs Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another – 07/10/2010 - Keywords:- Live in a relationship:- wife-  Women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said Act. [ref: to the larger bench] (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) (Before […]
  • Charanjit Lal Chowdhury  Vs  The Union of India and others – 04/12/1950. - Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 19, 31, 32—Deprivation of property
  • Chaturbhuj Versus Sita Bai-27/11/2007 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Phrase “unable to maintain herself”—Meaning of—It would mean that means available to deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself efforts made by wife after desertion to survive somehow.
  • CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER  VS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND-04/03/2020 - If The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act;
  • Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 13/11/2019-Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act: SC
  • Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)-10/08/2009 - Instigation—A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation—Presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation.
  • Church of North India Vs Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others-03/05/2005 - AIR 2005 SC 2544 : (2005) 3 SCR 1037 : (2005) 10 SCC 760 : JT 2005 (5) SC 202 : (2005) 4 SCALE 633 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) CHURCH of NORTH […]
  • Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-iii vs M/S. Uni Products India Ltd-01/05/2020 - The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.
  • Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd-14/11/2019 - Writ in Excise Matter-It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person.
  • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal – 13/08/2019 - Income Tax Act - According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section.
  • COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS- 03/08/1999 - Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconstruction. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality ot decision legally and properly made Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage ot justice Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice,
  • Competition Commission of India Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another-9/9/2010 - Competition act, 2002—Sections 16(1), 4, 6, 3, 26, 29 and 19—competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009—Regulations 30(2), 18(2), 35 and 17(2)—U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings act, 1960—Section 9(2)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14.
  • Corporation of Calcutta vs Mulchand Agarwala-17/11/1955 - Appeal—Interference with discretion—Permissibility—Unless the discretion is exercised on some mistake of fact or mis-apprehension of principle, interference by appellate Court is not called for.
  • D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019 - If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
  • D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal- 21/10/2010 - Key Words:– Maintenance-Delay-a relationship in the nature of marriage-Polimony-common law marriage⇒ It is not for Supreme Court to legislate or amend law—Parliament has used the expression “relationship in nature of marriage” and […]
  • D.S. NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – 17/12/1982 - Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’ for short) form a class as a whole? Is the date of retirement a […]
  • Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020 - The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
  • Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19 - Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.
  • Dalip Singh and others Versus State of Punjab-12/01/1979 - Although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of the investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is view of the exception provided in sub section (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declarations out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor.
  • Dalip Singh Versus State of U.P. and ORS -03/12/2009 - False statement on oath-it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.
  • Dammu Sreenu Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH-28/05/2009 - Penal Code, 1860—Section 306—abetment of suicide—Wife of deceased having illicit relationship with accused-appellant—Fact that appellant had illicit relationship with wife of deceased is an admitted position—Deceased committed suicide due to insult and […]
  • Dayal Saran Sanan Vs Union of India and others-16/01/1980 - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.
  • Dayanandi Vs Rukma D. Suvarna and Others-31/10/2011 - Hindu Law—Partition—Partition suit decreed by High Court in favour of defendant-respondent reversing decree of Trial Court—Some manipulative alterations were made in Will giving an impression that before putting his left thumb mark, testator had consciously disinherited respondent—Execution of second Will was highly suspicious and not a voluntary act of testator—Appeal dismissed.
  • Deb Narayan Shyam and others Vs State of WEST BENGAL and others-01/12/2004 - whether the qualifications, the duties discharged by the surveyors and Amins are same and identical so as to treat the Amins at par with that of the surveyors may be taken up for consideration.
  • Delhi Transport Corporation Vs D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others – 4/09/1990 - whether the employer, Statutory Corporation or instrumentality or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution has unbridled power to terminate the services of a permanent employee by issue of notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry or opportunity, in exercise of the power in terms of contract which include statutory Rules or Regulations or instructions having force of law.
  • Deoki Nandan Versus Murlidhar and others – 04/10/1956 - Under the Hindu law, an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it.
  • DEOKINANDAN PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : S. M. Sikri, C.J; P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J; I. D. Dua, J; G. K. Mitter, J; C. A. Vaidyialingam, J ) DEOKINANDAN PRASAD […]
  • DEV KARAN @ LAMBU VS STATE OF HARYANA- 06/08/2019 - "We may also notice that there are concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which have appreciated the evidence, and we do not think that this Court should convert itself into a third court of appeal for appreciation of evidence."

Click: Supreme Court Judgments without Headnotes

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7