Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and served upon the original writ petitioner but he did not collect the compensation and therefore, the same was again sent to the revenue deposit, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition in respect of land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DAYANAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Even when the Act, 2013 came into force the stay order continued to operate and due to which the possession of the land in question could not be taken, there shall be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 HELD There shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SIDDHARTH KAPOOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 – There shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. B.S. DHILLON AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Lapse of land acquisition – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, – When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed

Mar 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. BURHANI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT SNEH NAGAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Land Acquisition

HELD the decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…

Land Acquisition

Twin conditions – For lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the possession is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/paid are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013.

Feb 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw