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.
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 2, 3, 22 and 113 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rules 11 an 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Barred by law of limitation HELD having noticed from the averments in the plaint that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter from the Senior Manager, dated 8.5.2002, and in particular letter dated 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by the respondents vide Advocate’s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005, the plaint filed in February, 2005 would be well within limitation – Appeal allowed.

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Indira…

State Laws

Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 – Sections 5 and 5(2)(AA) – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 45.2 – Reimbursement of sales tax – Contractor company is rightfully entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount of sales tax levied on the taxable turnover of the works contracts executed by it.

Jun 7, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF ORISSA — Appellant Vs. B. ENGINEERS & BUILDERS LTD. & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh…

Constitution

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s Review Petition challenging P Chidambaram bail in INX Media Case HELD The investigating agency argued that the findings of the Court dealing with influencing witnesses in the case “are contrary to record which is required to be corrected”.

Jun 4, 2020 sclaw

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s Review Petition challenging P Chidambaram bail in INX Media Case The investigating agency argued that the findings of the Court dealing with influencing witnesses in the…

SARFAESI

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers. HELD “That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.”

Jun 3, 2020 sclaw

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers Shruti Mahajan Jun 3, 2020, 12:27 PM IST The Supreme Court has reiterated that statutory…

Consumer

IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS HELD No fare either by train or by bus shall be charged from any migrant workers – Railway fare shall be shared by the States as per their arrangement as submitted by the learned Solicitor General and in no case any fare should be asked or charged from any migrant workers by the States and the Railways & other interim directions issued.

May 30, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) (IA…

I P C

ACQUITTAL ::: Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 394, 460 and 302 – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 11 and 13 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 114 -Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34 – Common intention – Prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime.

May 30, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONU @ SUNIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Bihar Service Code – Rule 73 – Compulsory retirement – Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code does not prescribe any length of service as criteria for retirement. The prescribed age of retirement for employees of the category to which the Appellant belonged was 58 years, later increased to 60 years. The decision of the respondents to retire the Appellant before he attained the age of 60 years as per his actual date of birth. Matter referred to CJI as difference of opinion..

May 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOPAL PRASAD — Appellant Vs. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 – Rule 34.3 – Payment of gratuity – Employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. HELD termination’ and ‘dismissal’ are held to be synonymous but the difference between ‘termination’ and ‘dismissal’ is that dismissal could be on account of misconduct with loss of future employment involving dishonesty or criminality and penal in character but that is not in the case of termination – The “termination” as per Black’s Law Dictionary is the complete severance of relationship of employer and employee which in the instant case could be saved during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings

May 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SRI RABINDRANATH CHOUBEY — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and Ajay Rastogi,…

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