Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: State Laws

State Laws

Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 – Section 28 – Deposit of amount – Word “deposit” used in the Section, is to be understood and mean that deposit is to be made either, before making an application, or simultaneously with the application within the prescribed time of thirty days

Feb 26, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYAN YADAV (D) THR.LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and R. Subhash…

State Laws

Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Sections 32, 32(2)(a), 34, 45 and 46 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 35 and 109 – Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously – Presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed

Feb 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VERSUS SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

State Laws

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Sections 3, 6(19), 34 and 108 – Specific endowment – Deed of Settlement does create a “specific endowment” HELD In view of Section 108, no suit or legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in a civil court

Feb 20, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOINT COMMISSIONER — Appellant Vs. P K THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM ANANDHANA TRUST, REP.…

State Laws

Rajasthan Pre-emption Act 1966 – Sections 5(1)(c), 6, 6(1)(ii) and 6(3) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Right of pre-emption – Whether a right of pre-emption was available to plaintiff who is alleged to be a joint owner in possession of the disputed courtyard. HELD plaintiff had a superior right of pre-emption by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(3) since he was the brother of the second defendant – First defendant has an inferior right of pre-emption as compared to plaintiff – Hence his claim cannot prevail over the superior right of pre-emption of plaintiff

Feb 19, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH CHAND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SURESH CHANDER (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

State Laws

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 37(1) and 154 – Demand of premium – Letter of Intent – In this case it is to be noted that the Letter of Intent was valid for a period of three months only – If, for any reason, delay is occurred in obtaining clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority, nothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation so as to keep the Letter of Intent alive. Appeal dismissed

Feb 1, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (PROPOSED) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS…

State Laws

Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 8(3), 9 and 12(3) – Determination of surplus land – Appellants were not bonafide purchasers, they have purchased the land from “M” vide Sale deed dated 14.06.1989 i.e. much after land stood vested in the State Government and after the Orders were passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner HELD Appeal dismissed

Jan 28, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Environment

Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 415 — Appeal — Maintainability — Conviction recorded for first time by appellate court reversing acquittal — An appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court — No such second appeal is contemplated under CrPC or BNSS — The only remedy available is revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC (Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS)

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 44B — “Carriage” of passengers — Meaning and scope of — Cruise operations by non-resident shipping entity — Held, the word “carriage” under Section 44B cannot be restrictively construed to mean movement only from Port A to Port B. A round-trip cruise voyage, where passengers have the option to disembark at intermediate ports without compulsion to return to the originating port, constitutes carriage of passengers within the meaning of Section 44B. Provision of incidental on-board entertainment and hospitality does not alter the essential character of the activity as carriage of passengers.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope of inquiry — Mini-trial impermissible — At the stage of considering quashing of an FIR, the Court’s inquiry is confined to whether the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence — Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” by sifting evidence, assessing probabilities, or evaluating witness credibility — High Court exceeding these limits by examining trap proceedings, absence of personal recovery, and departmental enquiry findings, held impermissible.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw