Supreme Court of India Judgements

467730 Judgements hosted as on 20/04/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

Registration Act State Laws

Registration Act, 1908 — Tamil Nadu Registration Rules — Rule 55A(i) — Validity — Ultra Vires — Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which empowers a registering officer to refuse registration of a document relating to immovable property unless the presentant produces the previous original title deed of the executant or other specified proof of the executant’s right/title, is declared ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908

Apr 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. GOPI Vs. THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement — Sales exempt under S. 7(c) — Where a dealer makes sales to manufacturer-exporters against Form-E, which are exempt from tax under S. 7(c) pursuant to notifications (dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010), the dealer is not entitled to claim ITC on the purchase tax paid on such goods

Apr 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 476 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEHA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

State Laws

Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971— A Pattadar is essentially a landowner who holds a land deed (Patta) directly from the government, is registered in the land revenue accounts as the holder or occupant of the land, and is liable to pay land revenue — The issuance of a Pattadar Passbook raises a presumption in favor of the holder having a right in the land.

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 383 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R.…

Stamp Act State Laws

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 48(1) — Refund of stamp duty — The appellants sought a refund of stamp duty paid for a property transaction that was later cancelled — The High Court dismissed their claim, holding that the amended six-month limitation period applied — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the unamended two-year limitation period applied, and the appellants were entitled to a refund.

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 104 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HARSHIT HARISH JAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay…

State Laws

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 91 and 102 — The appellant had an outstanding loan from a society (R) that was wound up — The Liquidator auctioned the society’s property to recover dues, but the appellant, despite objecting to the valuation and process, did not challenge it promptly — The property was sold to respondent no. 6 for Rs. 2,51,48,000/- — The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition — The Supreme Court found procedural irregularities but held the appellant’s delay in challenging them estopped any further action. Considering the outstanding dues and undervaluation, the Court invoked Article 142 to direct respondent no. 6 to pay the appellant Rs. 1,05,98,710/- as full and final settlement. The remaining balance was to be disbursed to other creditors.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 741 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AHMEDNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

State Laws

Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 — Section 23 — Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987 — Section 5 — Exemption from Market fees — Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct fees levied under two different statutes with different objects and purposes — The court further clarified that the exemption from Market fees under the 2003 Industrial Policy does not automatically extend to Rural Development fees — The court set aside the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and dismissed the writ petition exemption from payment of Rural Development fees.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 526 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PUNJAB SPINTEX LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…

State Laws

“Jalkar vs. Private Ownership: Supreme Court Settles Dispute Over Pond Land in Bihar” Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Section 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The dispute involves 0.32 decimal of land in Bihar, originally settled by ex-landlord ‘R’ to ‘M’, and then allegedly inherited by the plaintiff-appellant through adoption – The main issue is the possession and confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over the land, which was challenged by the State authorities claiming the land as state-owned pond land (jalkar) – The plaintiff-appellant claims continuous possession since the land was settled to ‘M’ and asserts that the Consolidation Officer’s order confirming his title should be respected – The State of Bihar contends that the land is pond land and cannot be settled to the plaintiff-appellant, and that the civil suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act – The Supreme Court set aside the appellate courts’ judgments, restored the trial court’s decree, and confirmed the plaintiff-appellant’s title and possession of the land – The Court found that the appellate courts erred in ignoring the final and conclusive order of the Consolidation Officer, which recognized the plaintiff-appellant’s rights – The Court reasoned that the Consolidation Officer’s order, which became final, should have been given effect to, and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is impliedly excluded in such matters – The Supreme Court concluded that the civil suit for declaration of rights over the land is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, and the plaintiff-appellant’s rights stand recognized by the consolidation authorities.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM BALAK SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. )…

You missed

I P C

Defamation — Imputation in Good Faith for Protection of Interests — Exception 9 to S. 499 IPC engrafts the principle of qualified privilege, stating it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided it is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw
Corporate

ESI – The definition of ‘principal employer’ under Section 2(17) is wide and includes not only the owner or occupier of a factory (or head of department in government establishments) but also the managing agent or any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment — Designation is immaterial if the person functions as a managing agent or supervises/controls the establishment

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Habitual Offender/Criminal Antecedents — Consideration of Nature of Current Offence — While the criminal antecedents and alleged status of an accused as a habitual offender are extremely relevant factors that ordinarily weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court’s discretion in granting such bail may not warrant interference

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw
Circumstantial Evidence I P C

Murder (Filicide) vs. Suicide — In cases based on circumstantial evidence where the question is whether the death was homicidal (filicide) or suicidal, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence

Apr 20, 2025 sclaw