Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 15/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees. Adverse Possession — Claiming title by adverse possession against the State/Union Government is not permissible, irrespective of the duration of possession — Such perfection of rights is not recognized against the government. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law on ground of general and omnibus allegations, but declined relief to father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) — Allegations against appellants were similarly general and omnibus, with no specific role or overt act attributed to them — Delay in lodging FIR, coupled with lack of specific allegations, suggested possibility of FIR being a counter-blast to divorce petition filed by husband — High Court erred in applying different standards to similarly situated accused — Proceedings against appellants quashed. Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue. Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell — Trial Court decreed suit for specific performance of sale agreement — High Court set aside Trial Court’s decree — Held, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed on the same day as sale agreement established that sale agreement was sham and nominal, executed as security for loan — Plaintiff’s failure to disclose MoU in plaint indicated withholding of material facts and lack of bonafides — Equitable relief of specific performance denied — Appeal dismissed.
Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees.
Service
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees.
Adverse Possession — Claiming title by adverse possession against the State/Union Government is not permissible, irrespective of the duration of possession — Such perfection of rights is not recognized against the government.
C P C
Adverse Possession — Claiming title by adverse possession against the State/Union Government is not permissible, irrespective of the duration of possession — Such perfection of rights is not recognized against the government.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law on ground of general and omnibus allegations, but declined relief to father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) — Allegations against appellants were similarly general and omnibus, with no specific role or overt act attributed to them — Delay in lodging FIR, coupled with lack of specific allegations, suggested possibility of FIR being a counter-blast to divorce petition filed by husband — High Court erred in applying different standards to similarly situated accused — Proceedings against appellants quashed.
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law on ground of general and omnibus allegations, but declined relief to father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) — Allegations against appellants were similarly general and omnibus, with no specific role or overt act attributed to them — Delay in lodging FIR, coupled with lack of specific allegations, suggested possibility of FIR being a counter-blast to divorce petition filed by husband — High Court erred in applying different standards to similarly situated accused — Proceedings against appellants quashed.
Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue.
Companies Act Corporate
Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue.
Cr P C

HELD “… difference between the offences in Section 195(1)(b)(i) & Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC – Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Ss 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. The offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.

Sep 3, 2020 sclaw

HELD “…it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the…

Property Matters

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 20, 21 and 38(4) – Grant of exemption – competent authority being a creature of the statute under Section 2(d) of the Act, cannot act beyond its statutory jurisdiction and the exercise of its powers shall remain circumscribed by the provisions of the Act – Hence demand of price and recovery of property price outside the purview of act illegal.

Sep 3, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton…

Corporate

Spectrum Trading – Assessment of Liability – The telecom service providers’ stand is that the proceedings of insolvency under the Code have been triggered bona fide – This Court can examine the limited question in these proceedings whether the proceedings are resorted to as a subterfuge to avoid payment of AGR dues

Sep 3, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC.ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, S.…

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28 – Levy of customs duty – Sale of cut flowers – The burden of proving to the contrary rested upon the appellant, which the appellant failed to discharge by failing to establish that the imported inputs were not used in the production of the cut flowers sold in DTA – In view thereof, the authorities below have rightly invoked Section 28 of the 1962 Act and allied provisions – CESTAT has rightly upheld the levy of customs duty – Appeal dismissed.

Sep 1, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. L. R. BROTHERS INDO FLORA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

Contempt

Attempt on part of the fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction – This Court direct fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to appear before this Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m

Sep 1, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. VIJAY MALLYA — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ashok Bhushan,…

You missed

Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Adverse Possession — Claiming title by adverse possession against the State/Union Government is not permissible, irrespective of the duration of possession — Such perfection of rights is not recognized against the government.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law on ground of general and omnibus allegations, but declined relief to father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) — Allegations against appellants were similarly general and omnibus, with no specific role or overt act attributed to them — Delay in lodging FIR, coupled with lack of specific allegations, suggested possibility of FIR being a counter-blast to divorce petition filed by husband — High Court erred in applying different standards to similarly situated accused — Proceedings against appellants quashed.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw
Companies Act Corporate

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw