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.
Land Acquisition

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97, Order 21 Rule 99, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 21 Rule 25 and Order 21 Rule 35(3) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Delivery of possession by police help to the decree holder cannot be granted and stands vitiated in absence of any orders by the Court for providing such police assistance. In peculiar circumstances delivery of land not interfered with

Oct 21, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…

Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B 418, 420, 448 and 380 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 156(3) and 482 – Forgery and fabricationWhere the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.

Oct 21, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SRIKANTH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Direct Taxation

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 – Sections 50, 51, 59, 55, 85 and 86 – Declaration of undisclosed foreign asset -The penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of Section 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon. As such, we find that the High Court was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GAUTAM KHAITAN — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Promotion – Tribunal was right in holding that no prejudice is caused to the Appellant by applying Navy Order. Violation of every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere unless the affected person demonstrates prejudice caused to him by such violation – Appeals dismissed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURGEON REAR ADMIRAL MANISHA JAIPRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 11A and 33(2)(b) – Misconduct – Order of dismissal – Domestic enquiry -The Labour Court or Tribunal, therefore, while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act nor can they in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), dwell upon the proportionality of punishment, as erroneously done in the instant case, for such a power can be exercised by the Labour Court or Tribunal only under Section 11A of the Act – Appeal allowed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOHN D’SOUZA — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Civil…

State Laws

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and transfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 – Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999 – Rule 3(iii) and (iv) – Where the old dealers are to be allotted shops if they can satisfy the concerned authority, be it the market committee or the board that a particular condition could not be met for a short period due to reasons beyond the control of the dealer, then even though he may not be in strict compliance of the rules, the power of relaxation must be read into the Rules.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Cr P C

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Sections 3, 5 and 20-A, 20­A(1) – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1B)(a) and 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 154 and 154(1) – Recovery of arms – The bar under Section 20­A(1) of TADA Act applies to information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC. This bar will not apply to a rukka or a communication sent by the police official to the District Superintendent of Police seeking his sanction. Otherwise, there could be no communication seeking sanction, which could not have been the purpose of TADA Act.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EBHA ARJUN JADEJA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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