Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Cancellation of lease – A person who misleads the Development Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief – HELD Cancellation of lease – A person who misleads the Development Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief -Cancellation of lease – – Filing of a false affidavit disentitles the plaintiff for any equitable relief – any irregularity in the process of cancellation stands cured with Chief Executive Officer granting permission.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGHVI (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2012 Decided on : 15-02-2022 Cancellation of…

Corporate

Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69 – Suit for declaration and injunction by unregistered firm – HELD that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIV DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SUNILBHAI SOMABHAI AJMERI — Appellant Vs. AKSHARAY DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram…

Corporate

Competition Act, 2002 – Sections 2(u) 3 and 4 read with Section 19(1)(a) – Complaint – Lottery business can continue to be regulated by the Regulation Act – If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Corporate

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. — Appellant Vs. B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V.…

Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 243, 237(b), 433, 433(a), 433(g), 433(h), 433(i) and 439(1)(f) – Winding up – If the conduct of the affairs of the company in a fraudulent manner is a continuing process, the right to apply winding up becomes recurring: – Main departure of the 2013 Act from the statutory regime of the 1956 Act, is the specific inclusion of fraud, directly as one of the circumstances in which a company could be wound up –

Jan 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Corporate

Companies Act, 1956 – Section 531 – Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Section 45-MB – Suit for Interest on delayed payment on Bonds -the plaintiffs, like the Shakespearean character of Shylock, have raised the demand “I’ll have my bond. Speak not against my bond.” – Holder of the Bond has received their ‘pound of flesh’, but they seem to want more – Additional sum is not merited as SIBCO has already received their just entitlement and burdening the defendant with any further amount towards interest would be akin to Shylockian extraction of blood from the defendant.

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…

Corporate

Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 30 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer – Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw