Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued. Criminal Procedure — Institution of FIR — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process of law — High Court quashed FIR based only on Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, without considering other grounds raised by the accused — Supreme Court finds this approach incomplete and remands the matter for reconsideration of all grounds, emphasizing that procedural lapses like failure to obtain prior approval, if applicable, can render an FIR void ab initio.
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.
Service
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time
State Laws
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.
State Laws
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.
C P C

Section 100 CPC – The order of the High Court interfering with concurrent findings of facts by two courts is, therefore, held to be unsustainable in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order of the High Court is consequently set aside. The orders dated 06.03.1998 and 13.06.2002 of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are restored. The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. The present appeal is allowed.

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Consumer

There was no reason for the National Commission to hold that there was any violation of the requisite conditions on part of the appellant and there was no justification to reduce the claim to the extent of 60% of the IDV of the vehicle. The conclusions drawn and the directions issued by the State Commission, in our view, were quite correct and did not call for any interference.

Nov 20, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLESH — Appellant Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 – Rules 28, 28(i) and Rule 28(iii) – Seniority – Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service – In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits

Nov 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S.Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 250, 263, 268, 276, 278, 283, 283(1)C and 283(1) – Probate of Will – Revocation of – If it is accepted that in probate proceedings persons who have been dis-inherited in the Will on mere no objection certificates by them without either being called by probate court to appear and certify their no objections or to file any pleading will lead to unsatisfactory result and may cause prejudice to persons who were not aware of the proceedings and are yet claimed to have submitted no objections

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJU PURI — Appellant Vs. RAJIV SINGH HANSPAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8455…

Customs & Excise

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded – Scheme of Section 11A does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie determination or hearing.

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…

Constitution

Inter-State River Dispute Act, 1956 – Sections 3, 4, 9 and 11 – Use, control and distribution of waters of an Inter-State River – It must be stated that Section 3 of the Act postulates that a request be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed, whereafter the requisite power can be exercised by the Central Government

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 24A – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Imposition of costs -the Society would now be required to pay stamp duty at an enhanced rate, that by itself does not give any entitlement to seek relief against the Appellant

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MANAGER, THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD — Appellant Vs. FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw