Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 23/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority. Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished. Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.
Service
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Service
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Constitution

Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – HELD allegations made by petitioner vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by anything worthy to be called an evidence. Allegations of corruption and siphoning of money from shell companies are nothing but a bald allegation, without substantiating the allegations. Petitioner non- disclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs. PILs dismissed.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – When the acquisition is solely for the purpose of excavation of coal and the entire land is acquired on the basis of the estimates of the coal reserve identified and the entire land is to be mined and used and no further developmental activity is required

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. SHANKARAIAH THR. GPA HOLDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PEDDAPALI KARIMNAGAR DIST. AND OTHERS —…

Rent

Mesne profits/compensation – From the date of the decree of eviction, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises – Landlord not bound by contractual rate of rent

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMER CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. VIJAY ANANT GANGAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

State Laws

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1)(ca) – Election – Non-disclosure of conviction – Failure to disclose conviction for an offence under the Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, not a ground for declaring an election void – Appeal allowed.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI NAMBOOTHIRI — Appellant Vs. K.A. BAIJU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and V.Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

C P C Specific Performance

Suit for specific performance – There was no specific issue framed by the learned Trial Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff – There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. Remanded

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN — Appellant Vs. P.M. MUHAMMED ALI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 8050-8051…

Consumer Corporate

Standard Fire & Special Perils policy – Once it is proved that there is a deficiency in service and that insurance company knowingly entered into a contract, notwithstanding the exclusion clause, the consequence would flow out of it HELD per the common law principle of acquiescence and estoppel, insurance cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong, if any. It is a conscious waiver of the exclusion clause by insurance company.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TEXCO MARKETING PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…

Banking C P C

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank Not ousted by RDB Act – the proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court – there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise to DRT

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S.…

Constitution

Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990 – Section 47A – Public auction – Market value of property – Determination of – to say that even in a court monitored auction, the Registering Authority would have a say on what is the market price, would amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ASL VYAPAR PRIVATE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S.…

Education

University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 – – the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges – While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk — The right to walk is a fundamental right integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21 — This fundamental right includes the right to demarcated footpaths, which must take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 — Execution proceedings — High Court’s directions for assessment of compensation in execution proceedings — Held, impermissible when original suit did not seek compensation and parties did not consent — Setting aside of trial court and first appellate court decrees, followed by direction to execute court to assess value of construction, is not supported by CPC

Jun 23, 2026 sclaw
Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw