Supreme Court of India Judgements

46760 Judgements hosted as on 06/04/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

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. )…

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 358 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 339 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGI — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay…

State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…

State Laws

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 65(a)(e),81,98(2) and 116(2) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 – Court reasoned that the appellant should have approached the criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C instead of directly filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to interpret Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act in conjunction with the Cr.P.C – The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stating that the appellant is free to approach the concerned court regarding the custody of the vehicle.

Apr 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,…

You missed

Service

Supreme Court Rejects UCO Bank’s Plea That Employee Dismissed For Misconduct Wasn’t Entitled To Pension Despite 10 Yrs Service

Apr 6, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Even As We Near 80 Yrs Of Independence, Not Enough Public Jobs Generated For Eligible Candidates

Apr 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

IBC | Difference Between ‘Avoidance Transactions’ & ‘Fraudulent Or Wrongful Trading’

Apr 6, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Wife Can Be Affected By Defamation Of Husband; Apart From Individual Reputations, Spouses Share Common Family Reputation

Apr 6, 2025 sclaw