Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 04/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

“The owner is liable to pay charges after the goods have been taken charge by port and receipt issued to vessel owner. when the Port Trust takes charge of the good ” The point of time at which title to the goods passes to the consignee is not relevant to determine the liability of the consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges of the Port Trust” ” it would be the duty of the Port Trust to destuff every container that is entrusted to it, and return destuffed containers to any such person within as short a period as is feasible in cases where the owner/person entitled to the goods does not come forward to take delivery of the goods and destuff such containers. 

Aug 6, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COCHIN PORT TRUST — Appellant Vs. M/S AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Corporate

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 – Sections 8(3), 8(4) and 68 – Imposition of penalty – Plea of the appellant that he was part-time, non-executive Director not in charge of the conduct of business of the Company at the relevant time was erroneously discarded by the authorities and the High Court HELD present is a case where the liability has been fastened on the appellant without there being necessary basis for any such conclusion.

Jul 27, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAILENDRA SWARUP — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

Corporate

Copyright Law–Dramatic work–Provisions of the Act make a distinction between the ‘literary work’ and ‘dramatic work’–Copyright in respect of performance of ‘dance’ would not come within the purview of the literary work but would come within the purview of the definition of ‘dramatic work’–Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(h) and

Jul 26, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1000 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan…

Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 397 and 398 – Inheritance of shares – Jurisdiction – Dispute as to inheritance of shares is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression and/or mismanagement so as to attract Company Court’s jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398

Jul 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNA OSWAL — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ OSWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. ) Civil…

Corporate

Partnership Act, 1932 – Sections 37 and 48 – Distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership firm’ – On retirement of the partner, the reconstituted firm continues and the retiring partner is to be paid his dues in terms of Section 37 of the Partnership Act. In case of dissolution, accounts have to be settled and distributed as per the mode prescribed in Section 48 of the Partnership Act.

May 26, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GURU NANAK INDUSTRIES, FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and…

Corporate

SC Allows ED to Attach Assets Of JP Morgan And Its Directors To The Extent Of Amounts Allegedly Diverted From Amrapali Homebuyers HELD We lift the embargo created vide order dated 2nd December, 2019 not to attach the property of J.P. Morgan and its Directors. We permit the Enforcement Directorate to attach the Bank Accounts of J. P. Morgan as well as any other property belonging to J.P. Morgan and its Directors to the extent required”

May 23, 2020 sclaw

SC Allows ED to Attach Assets Of JP Morgan And Its Directors To The Extent Of Amounts Allegedly Diverted From Amrapali Homebuyers [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 23 May 2020…

Corporate

Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – Section 31 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Assessment order – It is well settled that rejection of delay application by the appellate forum does not entail in merger of the assessment order with that order – Appeal allowed.  

May 8, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before :…

Corporate

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Sections 3, 6 and 6(2) – Liability to tax on inter-State sales – Whether as a condition of giving the benefit of Section 6(2) of the said Act, the tax authorities can impose a limit or timeframe within which delivery of the respective goods has to be taken from a carrier when the goods are delivered to a carrier for transmission in course of inter-state sale. HELD In such circumstances fixing of timeframe by order of the Tax Administration of the State in our opinion would be impermissible. Decided on : 27-04-2020

Apr 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER — Appellant Vs. M/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A — Mandate of Arbitrator — Extension of mandate — In the absence of specific statutory provisions, party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention are guiding principles — If a party participates in proceedings and does not object to the extension of mandate, they may be estopped from challenging the award on that ground after it is passed.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) — Section 33 and Section 34(3) — Limitation for filing application to set aside arbitral award — Exclusion of time spent in disposal of applications under Section 33 — Court held that period spent in disposal of Section 33 applications by Arbitral Tribunal must be excluded for computing limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, regardless of whether the Section 33 applications were ultimately allowed or dismissed.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 15(1), 16, 39(a) & 39(c) — Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (2016 Order) — Clause 2(p) — Government Order (G.O.) No — 6 of 2019 — Paragraph IV(10) — Exclusion of married daughter from definition of ‘family’ for compassionate appointment as fair price shop dealer — Held, exclusion is based on gender stereotypes and lacks rational nexus with the object of the scheme, violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution — Marital status cannot be the sole criterion for dependency — Dependency is a question of fact.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw