Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2017

177 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• UNION OF INDIA versus VIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH LRS.

  23/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 68

  After dismissing an occupant’s second appeal and upholding Government ownership of Old Grant land, the High Court nevertheless left title open for future eviction proceedings. The Court removed that liberty: title had been directly tried and conclusively determined, while only compensation for authorised structures remained open.

• TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. & ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 517

  TISCO contested demands for water drawn from the Subarnarekha River. The Court held that fees, like taxes, require legislative authority under Article 265; legislative competence alone was insufficient. Because the High Court had not decided the asserted statutory or contractual bases, it remanded both appeals and stayed the demand pending that consideration.

• JUSTICE K S PUTIASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 1000

  Pending the Constitution Bench’s final Aadhaar hearing, the Court prescribed an interim arrangement extending specified linkage deadlines to 31 March 2018. New bank accounts required proof of an Aadhaar application and its number. The order did not finally decide the challenge to mandatory Aadhaar use or the effect of the 2016 Act on earlier interim orders.

• RAJIVE RATURI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 827

  In public-interest proceedings on accessibility, the Court recognised the constitutional and statutory obligation to provide barrier-free buildings, transport and information. It prescribed specific historical building and airport deadlines, required timed plans and reports for other sectors, and ordered constitution of advisory boards, with continuing reporting after disposal of the petitions.

• SRI DINESH KUMAR J. @ DINESH J. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS .

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 499

  An injured motorcyclist challenged a forty per cent deduction for contributory negligence. The Court found no evidence supporting the insurer’s plea: nonproduction of a driving licence, absence of eyewitnesses and comparative vehicle damage did not establish that the claimant’s negligent driving contributed to the accident. It ordered additional compensation.

• INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. versus SHASHI PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 268

  A petrol dealership cancelled for favouritism was continued under interim orders after the oil corporation failed to conduct a compliant fresh auction. The Court rejected conversion into a new dealership under a later policy, upheld the landowner’s protection against using her land for another dealer, and ordered inquiry into the corporation officials’ defaults.

• DISABLED RIGHTS GROUP & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 988

  Addressing disability access in higher education, the Court required compliance with the statutory five per cent reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in covered institutions and annual reporting. It directed UGC to constitute an expert committee to study accessibility and pedagogy proposals, implementation, funding and monitoring, rather than immediately mandate every suggested facility.

• STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. versus ALL U. P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 492

  In continuing proceedings on consumer-forum infrastructure and staffing, the Court required the Union to file an affidavit reporting compliance with its November 2016 directions. It closed the three-member committee after completion of its report and scheduled further consideration of implementation and infrastructure measures.

• TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 774

  The appellants sought release of personal and trust bank accounts frozen during investigation of alleged donation misuse. The Court upheld freezing under section 102 because material disclosed circumstances creating suspicion connected with the investigated offences and the Magistrate had been informed. It left factual explanations and later de-freezing requests open.

• VIJENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER, A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT & ANR.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 246

  A family contested a finding that its temple was public, disputing the alleged endowment and notice procedure behind a historical register entry. Finding the oral evidence balanced and the register potentially decisive if lawfully prepared, the Court ordered fresh adjudication with evidence and preserved status quo rather than finally declaring the temple private or public.

• M.C.MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 467

  Considering applications concerning premises sealed for commercial misuse, the Court created a conditional route to seek residential de-sealing through its Monitoring Committee. It extended that route to specified non-industrial misuse cases, reserved challenges to itself, and recalled pending challenges to Delhi’s protective legislation from the High Court without deciding their validity.

• HALAPPA versus MALIK SAB

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 500

  The High Court rejected a tractor-accident claim by preferring the initial FIR’s account that the claimant rode on the mudguard. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s finding, supported by sworn eyewitness evidence and the insurer’s failure to produce its investigation materials, that the tractor fell on the claimant. Compensation for permanent paraplegia was enhanced.

• RAJ KUMAR BHATIA versus SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 531

  The High Court reversed an order allowing amendment of a written statement after evaluating the proposed joint-family defence on its merits. The Court restored the amendment because it elaborated an existing defence, withdrew no admission and caused no prejudice; the supervisory jurisdiction had been exceeded.

• UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus PFIZER LIMITED AND ORS.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 179

  In challenges to notifications banning fixed-dose drug combinations, the Court held that prior consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board was not mandatory under section 26A. On these particular facts it nevertheless directed a reasoned expert reconsideration, with distinct treatment of pre-1988 drugs, continued status quo, and separate disposal of transferred Madras cases.

• HARPAL SINGH versus ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 107

  An objection to execution of an ex parte possessory decree alleged that the Delhi Land Reforms Act excluded civil jurisdiction. The Court rejected it because the unchallenged factual findings established that the land had ceased to be agricultural when the suit was instituted; the decree therefore suffered no inherent want of jurisdiction.

• MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED versus SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

  15/12/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 751

  The Court removed two threshold objections to operational creditors’ insolvency applications: absence of a financial-institution certificate of nonpayment and delivery of the demand notice by a lawyer. It held the certificate requirement directory and permitted an authorized agent or lawyer to deliver the notice, remanding the matters to the NCLAT for further proceedings.

• SUNKAMMA (D) BY LRS. versus S. PUSHPARAJ (D) BY LRS.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 488

  In a permanent-injunction suit concerning adjoining sites, the Court upheld the finding that the plaintiff lawfully possessed the disputed site based on witness testimony and a registered general power of attorney. It expressly declined to decide whether that document transferred ownership, a question implicated in separate title litigation.

• TOYOTO JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA versus MIS PRIUS AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 805

  Toyota’s passing-off claim concerning Prius failed because it did not establish sufficient goodwill in India before the defendants adopted the mark in April2001. The Court applied territoriality despite Toyota’s earlier international reputation. It nevertheless rejected the proposition that actual confusion must invariably be proved at final adjudication.

• MADAN MOHAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 222

  In revision against summoning additional accused, the High Court directed the Sessions Judge to consider and allow their bail application on the day of filing. The Supreme Court set aside that direction because it displaced the trial court’s independent judicial discretion. It also held that the complainant, whose application led to summoning, should have been heard in revision.

• PREM GIRI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 487

  The High Court rejected anticipatory bail with only a general reference to the overall facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court held that this supplied no judicial reasoning, set the order aside and remanded the application for a fresh decision on merits, without expressing any view on entitlement to bail.

• JOSEPH versus STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE .

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 452

  Following a fatal bomb attack during a funeral gathering, the Court distinguished the bomb carriers and instigator from participants using sickles or sticks. It rejected collective murder liability where common object or knowledge of likely murder was unproved, preserved the bomb carrier’s and instigator’s life sentences on different legal bases, and reduced the others’ convictions to individual hurt offences.

• ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. versus KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 217

  Royal Orchid Hotels challenged refusal of trademark registration in class42, relying partly on its successful class16 litigation and an earlier corporate name change. The Court refused leave because the High Court’s assessment of prior use and likely customer confusion was supported by the evidence; the earlier proceedings expressly left other disputes unaffected.

• M/S SAM BUILT WELL PVT. LTD. versus DEEPAK BUILDERS & ORS.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 479

  Three expert bodies found a construction bidder ineligible under the tender’s similar-work requirement. The Court held that the High Court’s Division Bench exceeded judicial-review limits by substituting its own technical assessment without finding mala fides or perversity. It restored the original award and recorded the successful appellant’s willingness to match the rival price.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus MIS HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 1009

  A larger Bench held that the Supreme Court cannot assume original jurisdiction over objections to an arbitration award merely because it appointed the arbitrator, retained control or directed filing of the award before it. Under the1940Act, the competent statutory court must decide post-award proceedings, preserving the legislatively conferred appeal. Contrary precedents were overruled.

• SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

  14/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 409

  Reviewing iron-ore production restrictions imposed after extensive illegal mining in Karnataka, the Court accepted revised caps for categoryA andB mines based on scientific rehabilitation plans and changed infrastructure. Newly auctioned former categoryC mines were treated separately, with any independent aggregate cap to be considered at an appropriate later stage.

• DR. SABU MATHEW GEORGE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  13/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 153

  In proceedings against online promotion of prohibited sex selection, the Court reviewed earlier blocking and nodal-agency directions and required a coordinated expert solution. It directed a meeting with the petitioner’s team and search-engine representatives within six weeks, while preserving the distinction between offending content and lawful access to information.

• STATE OF U.P. versus RAGHUVIR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

  13/12/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 293

  The Court partly allowed the State’s appeals against acquittal in a shooting case. Credible eyewitness accounts, corroborated by the recovered gun and ballistic comparison, justified restoring Prem Yadav’s murder conviction. The other three accused retained the benefit of doubt because comparable corroboration was absent.

• SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

  12/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 540

  The High Court’s contempt decision confined a slum-relocation judgment to the named writ petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the public-interest proceedings also covered affected residents identified in annexures. Those residents’ policy eligibility still required verification, and implementation was directed within three months.

• FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  12/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 503

  The Court held that the weights-and-measures legislation and its replacement Legal Metrology Act did not prohibit hotels and restaurants from charging above printed MRP for mineral water supplied as part of composite service. The statutory sale definitions had not incorporated the constitutional deemed-sale extension for food and drink supplied with services.

• BHARATSING S/O GULABSINGH JAKHAD & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  12/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 470

  The Collector decided a timely compensation-redetermination application while appeals against the relied-on awards were pending. Although a later second application was not maintainable, the Court directed reconsideration of the original application in light of the appellate enhancement because the Collector should have awaited finality.

• MR. RANVIR DEWAN versus MRS. RASHMI KHANNA & ANR.

  12/12/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 542

  A widow’s testamentary right to reside in and receive income from a house did not enlarge into absolute ownership. Construing the will and the surrounding disposition, the Court held that it created a restricted estate for the first time under section14(2), while giving the children ownership and the widow other properties absolutely.

• KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI versus BALWANT SINGH THAKUR & ANR.

  11/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 493

  An advocate objected as an alleged creditor to a former client’s private property sale years after their litigation ended. The Court held that the cited professional rule concerned purchases in execution proceedings and did not cover this transaction. On the complaint as framed, disciplinary proceedings and suspension were unsustainable.

• TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN versus RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

  11/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 441

  The High Court in Small Causes revision replaced a supported finding ofRs1,500 monthly rent with the tenant’sRs250 figure. The Supreme Court held that it exceeded revisional limits and ignored material reasons. It also rejected waiver and limitation objections to the later formal eviction prayer, restoring the eviction and rent decree.

• MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA versus ROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.

  11/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 231

  A partition plaintiff sought to add a claim to proceeds of another family property before evidence was actually led. Although trial had technically commenced, the later evidence addressed the proposed pleading and no prejudice justified rejecting amendment. The Court allowed it, leaving the claimed share and disputed limitation period for final adjudication.

• BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS

  11/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 142

  The father of a murdered schoolchild challenged interim anticipatory protection granted to senior school-management respondents. The Court upheld protection until filing of the challan because the investigation then disclosed no evidence pointing to their complicity. It rejected alleged suppression and expressly left the ongoing investigation and merits open.

• RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  11/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 95

  After repeated evaluations and eight years of teacher-recruitment litigation, the Court restated strict limits on judicial intervention in examination answers. It nevertheless ordered publication of the completed third results, protected existing appointees and directed supernumerary appointments for newly successful candidates, without consequential benefits.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH TURN & ANR.

  08/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 421

  Personnel below officer rank who retired between January2006 and August2008 claimed modified assured career progression benefits from the earlier date. Construing the Cabinet resolution accepting the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the Court held MACP part of pay rather than allowances and rejected a later executive instruction postponing its operation.

• UNION OF INDIA versus M/S. SUSAKA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  08/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 430

  The Railways sought to invoke a contractual no-interest clause against an arbitral award after consenting to reference of interest claims and not pursuing that defence at earlier stages. The Court rejected the belated plea as waived or abandoned and also relied on finality arising from failure to appeal the adverse part of the section34 decision.

• AFTARUDDIN (DEAD) REP. THR. LRS. versus RAMKRISHNA DATTA ALIAS BABUL DATTA & ORS.

  08/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 85

  Purchasers claimed title through a purported transfer by a protected under-raiyat who was described in the deed as a raiyat. The Court held that this description could not evade the statutory transfer prohibition. His later acquisition of raiyat rights did not validate the purchasers’ claim, and dismissal of their suit was restored.

• MANJEET SINGH versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

  08/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 90

  A truck was stolen by persons to whom its driver had given a lift. The Court held that this policy breach was not fundamental enough to extinguish insurance liability and ordered non-standard settlement at75percent of insured value. Loan-recovery arbitration did not defeat the insured’s claim, though an unpaid financier award had priority in distribution.

• ASHARFI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  08/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 128

  The Court preserved the appellant’s rape and other Penal Code convictions but set aside the separate life sentence under the unamended atrocities provision. For the1995 offence, proof that the victim was targeted on the ground of her caste was required and absent; the later knowledge-based amendment did not govern.

• NITYA DHARMANANDA @ K. LENIN & ANR versus SRI GOPAL SHEELUM REDDY ALSO KNOWN AS NITHYA BHAKTANANDA AND ANR.

  07/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 118

  An accused sought all investigative material omitted from the chargesheet at the charge-framing stage. The Court distinguished the accused’s ordinary lack of entitlement to invoke section91 from the court’s own power to summon withheld material of sterling quality with a crucial bearing on charge, setting aside the contrary High Court approach.

• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLHAPUR versus MIS. CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE

  07/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1083

  Entertainment-duty concessions encouraging capital-intensive multiplex construction in Maharashtra and West Bengal were held to be capital receipts. Applying the subsidy-purpose test, the Court rejected reliance on the post-construction timing of relief or its mechanism through retained entertainment tax as reasons to treat it as revenue.

• PRABHU DUTT TIWARI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  07/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 123

  The High Court quashed a private-complaint summoning order after treating a land-transfer dispute as purely civil. The Supreme Court restored the order because the Magistrate had found sufficient grounds to proceed on the complaint evidence; determination of guilt or competing merits was premature.

• SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI versus LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

  06/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 437

  The Court reversed dismissal of a landlord’s ejectment suit because the fixed-term lease was not renewed and a tenancy interest was transferred without proven consent. It distinguished contractual permission to sublet from permission to transfer the tenancy itself, and left the separate rent-default question undecided.

• PRATEEK GUPTA versus SHILPY GUPTA & ORS.

  06/12/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 230

  The High Court ordered a father to return his young son to the mother in the United States, relying on foreign custody orders and comity. The Supreme Court reversed because the child’s welfare required independent assessment and the record did not justify uprooting him from his settled Indian environment. Substantive custody proceedings remained open.

• NASIRUDDIN & ANR. ETC. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS

  06/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1073

  Contracts granting municipal collection rights over Tehbazari and parking fees were held to be leases for stamp-duty purposes. The Stamp Act’s extended definition expressly includes instruments letting tolls of any description, regardless of whether the ordinary property-law concept of a lease would apply.

• ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

  06/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1044

  A landlord sought to add recoverable municipal property tax to contractual rent so that the tenant would exceed the Delhi Rent Control Act’s protection threshold. The Court rejected that approach: the municipal right to recover tax as rent did not convert it into rent for eviction or displace the special rent-control protections.

• REVANASIDDAYYA versus GANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 52

  A purchaser placed in possession under a sale agreement later lost his specific-performance suit and appeal. In the owners’ separate possession action, the Court upheld recovery of the land and, using Article142, required refund of the admitted earnest money as well as restoration of possession within three months.

• B. SUNITHA versus THE STATE OF TELENGANA & ANR.

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 456

  An advocate prosecuted his client over a dishonoured fee cheque while admittedly claiming16percent of her compensation award, without a written fee contract or accounts. The Court held the percentage-based claim contrary to professional ethics and public policy and quashed the complaint, leaving disciplinary consequences to the appropriate forum.

• KAMALAKHYA DEY PURKAYASTHA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 79

  Applicants sought a definition and identification procedure for originally-inhabitant status in Assam NRC verification, fearing a superior class of citizens. The Court held that the clause concerned a different verification process, not special citizenship entitlement, and declined the requested clarification because citizenship alone governed inclusion.

• BALWANT VITHAL KADAM versus SUNIL BABURAOI KADAM

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 44

  The Court upheld specific performance of land-sale agreements, distinguishing an agreement to sell from a completed transfer for the claimed cooperative-law bar. It preserved the supported readiness-and-willingness finding and refused belated mixed factual and legal challenges on limitation, fragmentation and alleged loan security.

• RUPAJAN BEGUM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 58

  The Court reversed blanket invalidation of approved village-panchayat and executive-magistrate certificates used by married women in the Assam NRC process. Such certificates were supporting linkage documents, not citizenship proof, and could be used only after verifying both their authenticity and contents. The individual foreigner determination was left for separate merits disposal.

• DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11 (I) BANGALORE versus M/S. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 21

  The Court held that initial eligibility for the small-scale undertaking deduction did not guarantee relief for all ten years. An assessee that ceased to qualify as small-scale in a later assessment year could not claim that year’s incentive merely because growth caused the change. Continuing eligibility conditions remained enforceable.

• BANK OF INDIA versus YADAV CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. AND ANR.

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 67

  A security agency appointed during debt recovery obtained an MSME award against the bank despite earlier accepted tribunal orders placing continuing charges on auction purchasers. The Court held those orders binding and the Council without jurisdiction in these circumstances, setting the award aside and permitting recovery and withdrawal of deposited funds.

• SUTLEJ CONSTRUCTION versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

  05/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 134

  An arbitrator found that the department’s failure to facilitate unloading and compaction prevented timely earthwork and made termination unlawful. The Court restored the reasoned award after the High Court had substituted its own factual and contractual assessment, holding that the arbitrator’s view was at least plausible.

• MOHAMMED ABDULLA KHAN versus PRAKASH K.

  04/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 9

  The High Court quashed defamation proceedings against a newspaper owner on the premise that only its editor could be prosecuted. The Supreme Court rejected that categorical immunity and restored the case, distinguishing direct responsibility for publication, printing or sale from the broader vicarious-liability question, which it left open.

• C. VENKATA SWAMY versus H. N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. ETC.

  04/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1

  The High Court cursorily dismissed first appeals arising from competing land suits without independently assessing evidence, issues and submissions. The Supreme Court remanded both appeals because a first appeal carries a right to full consideration of facts and law and requires a reasoned decision.

• CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  01/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 337

  A public-interest petition sought a special investigation team for an alleged bribery conspiracy connected with a Supreme Court matter. The Court held that identical facts, relief and submissions had already been addressed in Kamini Jaiswal, characterized continued pursuit as gross abuse of process, and dismissed the petition with exemplary costs.

• UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

  01/12/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 137

  On counsel’s mention, the Court clarified paragraph11 of its24November2017 compensation judgment. The release direction was to be read as referring to the amount deposited in the trial court, payable to the claimants on due identification.

• MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  01/12/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 115

  Former owners sought regrant of land acquired for a dam under a State policy. The Court upheld refusal and held the regrant policy incompatible with Article14 and public-trust principles. It distinguished a lawful rehabilitation policy for persons rendered landless and permitted the State to frame one.

• DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  30/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 508

  In continuing road-safety public-interest proceedings, the Court issued25 directions on institutions, funding, engineering, enforcement and accident care, based on agreed recommendations. The operative directions set specific deadlines for several State bodies and plans while treating other measures as ongoing implementation or recommendations rather than adopting every proposed timetable in the preceding chart.

• ANIL KUMAR SINGH versus V!JAY PAL SINGH & ORS.

  30/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 74

  A plaintiff withdrew his injunction suit without liberty to bring a fresh suit, subject to costs. The Court restored that withdrawal order and held that the High Court exceeded the limited challenge by directing possession to the defendant. Independent ownership and possession remedies remained available to the defendant.

• PATEL FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES AND ANR. versus P.M. DIESELS LTD. AND ANR.

  29/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 674

  The Court explained the exclusive statutory route for trademark invalidity raised in an infringement suit. Where rectification is not already pending, the civil court must find the invalidity plea prima facie tenable and frame the issue before the statutory rectification process is pursued. Failure to pursue it within the permitted time entails abandonment between the parties, not merely loss of a stay.

• VINOD GOYAL & OTHERS versus VISHRANTI CITY RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY & OTHERS

  29/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 258

  In a housing-development amenities dispute, the High Court ordered attachment and sale of partners’ personal properties and other coercive measures. After noting disputed responsibility for development charges and interim steps toward electricity supply, the Supreme Court set the order aside and remanded for fresh consideration with sufficient opportunity to both sides.

• ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 145

  The police added an atrocities charge in a supplementary report at the National Commission for Scheduled Castes’ direction. The Court held that the Commission could identify investigative lapses but not dictate charges, and that the original complaint lacked the necessary caste-based allegations. It quashed the supplementary report, rejecting the supposed bar on partial quashing.

• MANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & ORS.

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 111

  A petition sought to prevent overseas exhibition of Padmavati before Indian certification and to compel criminal investigation of its makers. The Court dismissed the unsupported prayers, struck scurrilous pleadings and emphasized that public officeholders must not prejudge pending certification. It affirmed protection of artistic expression subject to lawful reasonable restrictions.

• COMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 154

  A public-interest challenge alleged defects in Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as CBI Special Director. The Court examined the selection minutes, found that the Director had been consulted and relevant materials considered, and upheld the appointment. It distinguished judicial review of the selection process from review of comparative merit.

• LAXMIDHAR NAYAK AND ORS. versus JU GAL KISH ORE BEHERA AND ORS.

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 242

  The deceased agricultural labourer’s children challenged an award of Rs 70,600 for her death in a road accident. Accounting for both paid agricultural labour and unpaid household work, the Court reassessed dependency and enhanced total compensation to Rs 5,34,000.

• DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR. versus SATISH KANTILAL AMRELIA

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 414

  A daily-wage peon-cum-driver obtained reinstatement with 40% back wages from the Labour Court, while parallel civil proceedings had ended against him. Considering his short service, the conflicting proceedings and the 25-year interval since termination, the Supreme Court substituted lump-sum compensation for reinstatement and back wages.

• KOSHY JACOB versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 235

  An advocate delayed on the road by an agitation sought implementation of the Court’s earlier guidelines concerning destruction of property during protests. The Court noted the Union’s proposed legislation and expressed hope for its enactment within a reasonable time, while leaving the petitioner’s individual claim to the appropriate forum.

• DOONGAR SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  28/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 222

  The Court upheld concurrent convictions arising from a fatal group assault. Noticing prolonged adjournments of a star witness’s cross-examination and witnesses turning hostile, it also issued directions for continuous trial, early examination of eyewitnesses and recording their statements before a Magistrate.

• AGARWAL TRACOM PVT. LTD. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

  27/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 164

  An auction purchaser challenged a secured creditor’s forfeiture of its deposit through a writ petition, contending that forfeiture fell outside SARFAESI measures. The Court held that the purchaser could challenge forfeiture before the DRT under Section 17 and upheld the High Court’s refusal to entertain the writ petition.

• AJAYINDER SANGWAN & ORS. versus BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI

  24/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 264

  In pending proceedings concerning State Bar Council elections, many advocates who had submitted their law degrees faced exclusion because verification remained incomplete. The Court modified its earlier directions to permit their provisional participation, excluding degrees already found fake and revising the election and verification deadlines.

• UNITED LNDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

  24/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 130

  A reference questioned whether an insurer could resist a structured-formula motor accident claim under Section 163A by alleging the victim’s negligence. The Court answered that such a defence is unavailable, leaving the appeal for later disposal after resolution of the separately pending Section 170 reference.

• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II versus M/S MODJPON LTD.

  24/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 84

  The Revenue disputed deduction under Section 43B for advance central excise duty deposited in the Personal Ledger Account before adjustment against clearances. Examining the statutory deposit scheme and the assessee’s lack of control over deposited funds, the Court held that the deposit constituted actual payment and upheld the deductions.

• DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 26(1) NEW DELHI versus S.R.M.B. DAIRY FARMING (P) LTD.

  23/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1118

  The Revenue contended that the increased monetary limit in CBDT Instruction No 3 of 2011 applied only to appeals filed after its issue. Resolving conflicting decisions, the Court held that the instruction also applied to pending matters, subject to the safeguards recognised by the three-judge Bench in Surya Herbal.

• NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  23/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 358

  These petitions and appeals challenged the twin bail conditions in Section 45(1) of the PMLA as worded in 2017, which linked their application to scheduled Part A offences punishable above three years. The Court held those additional conditions unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21 and remanded the affected bail matters for fresh decisions without applying them.

• SMT. BAYANABAI KAWARE versus RAJENDRA S/O BABURAO DHOTE

  23/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1029

  A defendant resisting a possession suit argued that the plaintiff’s registered sale deed had not been proved through attesting witnesses. The Court upheld the High Court’s decree, holding that a sale deed does not require attestation and that execution was adequately proved on the admitted facts.

• MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus Q.C.R.G. MEMORIAL TRUST & ORS.

  23/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 92

  The Medical Council challenged a High Court order permitting a medical college to admit students despite governmental debarment and the Supreme Court’s earlier restriction. The Court condemned the grant of relief without awaiting the regulators’ replies, confirmed that the admitted students could not continue, and ordered compensation and fee refunds.

• RATANLAL @ BABULAL CHUNILAL SAMSUKA versus SUNDARABAI GOVARDHANDAS SAMSUKA(D) TH. LRS.& ORS.

  22/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 28

  A married man aged 32 claimed adoption by his paternal uncle under a Jain custom. The Court upheld the rejection of his claim because the alleged custom had not been properly pleaded or proved and the evidence of adoption contained material contradictions and unexplained suspicious circumstances.

• GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

  22/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 369

  Litigation over 240 kilograms of gold seized in 1965 raised which law governed fresh confiscation adjudication after successive repeals and what redemption fine was payable. The Court held that the saved Defence of India Rules governed, rejected valuation at seizure under the Gold Control Act, and sustained Rs 11.04 crore with interest at 10% per annum.

• SRI SHIVAJI BALARAM HAIBAITL versus SRI AVINASH MARUTHI PAWAR

  20/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 344

  The trial and first appellate courts decreed possession against an occupier whose adverse-possession defence failed. The High Court instead treated him as a tenant on second appeal, although he had not pleaded tenancy. The Supreme Court rejected that approach and restored the concurrent decrees.

• KUNA@ SANJAYA BEHERA versus THE STATE OF ODISHA

  17/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 179

  The appellant challenged concurrent murder convictions resting principally on a sole eyewitness who disclosed the incident only later. Considering the witness’s intoxication, uncertain visibility, unexplained silence during the prolonged occurrence and lack of independent incriminating evidence, the Court found the charge unproved and acquitted the appellant.

• ECL FINANCE LTD. versus HARIKISHAN SHANKARJI GUDIPATI & ORS.

  16/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1036

  A Single Judge issued notice on a contempt petition alleging breach of a consent decree. The respondents obtained an intra-court appeal while its maintainability remained undecided. The Supreme Court held that the notice reflected only prima facie satisfaction, set aside the Division Bench order and requested consolidation with the pending execution proceedings.

• SAKHARAM GANESH PUJARI (D) THR. HIS LRS versus HUSEN ABA BAHADUR (D} BY HIS LRS.& ANR.

  16/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 229

  A landlord who retired from the Armed Forces in1959 challenged the High Court’s recognition of a tenant’s continuing purchase right under a chapter introduced in1964. The Court held that the amendment did not retrospectively revive rights whose statutory periods had already expired, and directed continuation of Section32P action.

• MITESH KUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  16/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 353

  Landowners signed largely blank consent forms and gave possession in1989, but acquisition notification followed only in1996 and awards in1997. They had repudiated the arrangements by seeking a reference in1995. The Court held that the stale forms could not support consent awards barring reference, and restored compensation at Rs21.48 per square metre.

• CHIRAG M. PATHAK & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus DOLLYBEN KANTILAL & ORS.

  15/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 424

  The High Court quashed five FIRs concerning alleged fraud in cooperative housing societies as repetitions of an earlier FIR. The Supreme Court found material differences in the societies, transactions and accounts, restored separate investigations and directed eventual consolidation of the cases for trial before one competent court.

• DR.KAZIMUNNISA (DEAD) BY L.R. versus ZAKIA SULTANA (DEAD) BY L.R.& ORS.

  15/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1019

  Two land-grabbing proceedings over portions of the same land produced conflicting Special Court decisions, later resolved against the appellant by the High Court. Finding an unsatisfactory trial, omitted State parties and excessive appellate-style scrutiny under Article227, the Supreme Court remanded both matters for a consolidated fresh decision without expressing any view on ownership or land grabbing.

• DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. versus TARUN PAL SINGH & ORS.

  15/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 202

  For Metro land acquisition with an award made in2011, the High Court preserved acquisition but ordered compensation under the2013 Act using the proviso to Section24(2). The Supreme Court held that the proviso belonged to subsection(2), requiring an award at least five years before commencement, and could not be attached to Section24(1)(b).

• THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. versus JAYANTA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.

  14/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 247

  These connected matters raised constitutional questions about reservation, including the treatment of SC/ST backwardness under Nagaraj and Chinnaiah and creamy-layer issues within notified groups. The Court referred them for Constitution Bench consideration and left interim relief to that Bench.

• KAMINI JAISWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  14/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 189

  A petition sought an SIT investigation into alleged attempts by intermediaries and a retired High Court judge to influence medical-college litigation. It also challenged the Chief Justice’s allocation of the case and sought a sitting Bench member’s recusal. Applying the intervening Constitution Bench roster ruling, the Court rejected these objections and dismissed the petition.

• ANIL KUMAR YADAV versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

  14/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 195

  Accused in a fatal assault challenged the High Court’s cancellation of their bail. The Court held that the Sessions Court had prematurely assessed CCTV and witness discrepancies while overlooking material supporting a prima facie case, the gravity of the offence and the risk to fair trial. It upheld cancellation and required surrender.

• SIVANANDAN C.T. & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ORS.

  14/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 226

  Candidates challenged Kerala Higher Judicial Service selection after a separate viva-voce minimum was introduced following interviews, despite the prior scheme using aggregate marks without an interview cutoff. Finding that Manjusree applied but that its correctness was already under larger-Bench consideration, the Court referred these matters to be heard with Tej Prakash Pathak.

• INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

  14/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 477

  Indian Oil challenged denial of entry-tax setoff for petroleum sold to other oil companies, where VAT arose only on those companies’ later sales. The Court rejected the claimed setoff and discrimination challenge, refused interest, but allowed the company to establish before the Tribunal the extent of sales outside Patna not liable to the disputed entry-tax demand.

• THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. & ORS. versus K. BALU & ANR.

  13/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 614

  Tamil Nadu sought clarification of the July2017 explanation of the Court’s highway liquor-sale directions. The Court confirmed that the clarification concerning licensed establishments within municipal areas applied to all municipal areas throughout the country, avoiding repeated applications.

• UNION OF INDIA versus AKHILA BHARATHIYA ADIVASI VIKASA PARISHAD & ORS.

  13/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 251

  The Union sought transfer of an Andhra Pradesh High Court challenge to the Forest Rights Act because a substantive challenge to the same central statute was already pending in the Supreme Court. The Court allowed transfer and ordered prompt transmission of the record.

• STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus JAIRNAIL SINGH

  13/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 122

  The State challenged the High Court’s acquittal of an accused convicted at trial of attempted murder and an Arms Act offence. The Supreme Court agreed that omissions in early identification, doubtful recovery circumstances, absent forensic examination and medical inconsistency were material, and declined to disturb the reasoned acquittal.

• JAYKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  13/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 104

  Rival claimants sought settlement of MHADA land, one relying on a provisionally accepted auction bid and the other on earlier private negotiations. With both asserted settlements cancelled and permissible land use fundamentally changed, the Court required a fresh public auction and confined relief to deposit-related directions.

• SHEO NARAIN NAGAR & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  13/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 138

  Employees engaged since1993 were denied regularisation and terminated after the High Court treated their appointments as illegal. Noting that they had received minimum-scale pay and retrospective temporary status, the Court found no backdoor entry and applied Umadevi’s one-time regularisation principle, directing regularisation and consequential benefits.

• SAGAR PANDURANG DHUNDARE versus KESHAV AABA PATIL AND OTHERS

  13/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 13

  Elected panchayat members faced disqualification as beneficiaries of encroachments attributed to their fathers or grandfathers, without allegations that they originally encroached. Construing the law as it stood in2017, the Court declined to extend the disqualification merely through family status, while identifying punishment and final eviction orders as additional grounds preventing continuation.

• ROHIT TANDON versus THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

  10/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 156

  The appellant sought regular bail in a money-laundering prosecution concerning alleged conversion of demonetised cash through fictitious bank drafts. Applying Section45 as it then stood, while leaving its constitutional validity for separate proceedings, the Court upheld refusal of bail and called for expeditious day-to-day trial unaffected by its tentative observations.

• CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  10/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 331

  A Constitution Bench addressed competing listing directions in connected judicial-accountability proceedings. Extending Prakash Chand’s roster principles to the Supreme Court, it held that the Chief Justice alone constitutes Benches and allocates cases, declared contrary orders ineffective and left the writ petition’s merits to an appropriately allocated Bench.

• IA. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI

  10/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 43

  Manufacturers benefiting from area-based excise exemption received refund of excise duty but not the education cesses paid with it. In this2017 judgment, the Court held that the cesses calculated on exempted excise duty were refundable as well, relying on the statutory surcharge structure and departmental circulars.

• KHEKH RAM versus STATE OF H.P.

  10/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 956

  The High Court reversed an acquittal in a charas-seizure case, relying heavily on a bank passbook found in the abandoned car. The Supreme Court held that identification of the fleeing driver and conscious possession were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, restored acquittal and ordered an inquiry into investigative lapses.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY GANGULY. VSM

  10/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 61

  After an officer’s ACR profile improved through partial redress, a review promotion board retained his earlier board marks and again denied empanelment. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s directions because the review had to follow the original board’s actual standards and had been affected by incorrect ranking information, while preserving the board’s general discretion in future selections.

• MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. versus M. MANI

  09/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 933

  BHEL dismissed two drivers after a domestic inquiry found theft of company machinery proved. Despite their criminal acquittal, the Court upheld the independent disciplinary findings and dismissal, rejecting reinstatement and a fresh remand because the inquiry was valid and the punishment proportionate.

• NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  09/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 141

  NIMS sought allotment and protection of constructions on land in the Ramgarh Dam catchment. Upholding findings of encroachment without sanction, the Court rejected reliance on unanswered representations and ordered demolition at NIMS’s expense, together with costs for the petitions.

• KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  09/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 945

  A hospital association challenged a minimum-wage revision committee because several employer representatives were themselves employees of hospitals. The Court held that Section9 permitted such nominees to represent their employers, found equal representation and a sufficient connection with the sector, and upheld the committee.

• INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. versus KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPGRATION & ORS.

  07/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 507

  State transport undertakings challenged withdrawal of diesel subsidy for direct bulk purchases while retail subsidy continued. The Court upheld the fiscal policy as rational and non-discriminatory, rejected a right to continued subsidy based on public-service functions, and addressed payment for periods covered by interim relief.

• UNION OF JNDIA & ORS. versus BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED &ANR.

  07/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 347

  A government lessee disputed service-tax liability under a lease allocating taxes primarily leviable on each party. The Court held that the service provider was the statutory taxpayer and Clause6 ordinarily placed the burden on the lessor. Nevertheless, the Union’s express pre-lease letters undertaking to bear service tax led the Court to refuse discretionary relief on the facts.

• THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus TRIBHUWAN & ORS.

  06/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1

  The State’s surviving appeal concerned only Tribhuwan after proceedings against other respondents had ended. The High Court retained his grievous-hurt conviction but substituted a fine for all substantive imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that imprisonment could not be eliminated, yet fixed it at the40days already undergone given the37-year litigation and his lack of personally inflicted injury.

• SURESH KUMAR THROUGH GPA versus ANIL KAKARIA & ORS.

  06/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 253

  A plaintiff relied on an alleged1980 agreement and Will to challenge a later sale and seek declaration and mandatory transfer through a suit filed in1992. Upholding concurrent findings that both documents were unproved, the Court also held that the chosen relief was misconceived and the delayed claim barred on these facts.

• CHAND DEVI DAGA & ORS. versus MANJU K. HUMATANI & ORS.

  03/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 923

  After a complaint and revision were dismissed, the complainant died while her challenge remained pending in the High Court. The Court upheld permission for her legal heirs to continue that criminal miscellaneous petition, rejecting the contention that death necessarily ended the proceeding.

• MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS UNION versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  03/11/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 446

  The Court invalidated the graduation requirement restricting Forest Guards’ participation in the limited departmental examination for promotion to Forester. In this scheme, the examination selected on merit from the common cadre and no graduate quota existed. Existing promotions were protected, while future examinations must admit all otherwise eligible Forest Guards.

• SENIOR MANAGER (P&D), RIICO LTD. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

  03/11/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 214

  RIICO’s officer challenged rejection of a protest petition concerning an allegedly forged letter later filed in civil proceedings. The Court confirmed that Section195(1)(b)(ii) did not bar action for pre-filing forgery, but upheld refusal of cognizance because the later orders rested on lack of prima facie material connecting the accused to the forgery.

• ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. versus RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.

  03/11/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 921

  Resolving conflicting High Court decisions on engineering degrees awarded through distance education by four deemed universities, the Court held their approvals unlawful. It suspended degrees of students enrolled in 2001–2005 pending competency tests, cancelled those of later entrants, and ordered refunds, investigation and regulatory oversight.

• VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING LLC versus TECH MAHINDRA LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

  01/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 259

  The two judges differed on whether Satyam’s concealed accounting irregularities justified setting aside an arbitral award directing Venture to transfer its joint-venture shares. Sapre J would restore the trial court’s setting-aside order; Chelameswar J would uphold the High Court. The operative order referred the papers to the Chief Justice for further action.

• M/S. K. LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANY versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

  01/11/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 644

  A partnership sought statutory interest on a refund arising when the Settlement Commission partially waived interest levied for assessment years1993–94 and1994–95. The Court held that the discretionary character of the waiver did not defeat the resulting right to refund and interest, and reversed the High Court.

• NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus PRANAY SETHI AND ORS.

  31/10/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 100

  Answering a reference concerning motor-accident death compensation, the Constitution Bench standardised additions for future prospects for permanent employees, the self-employed and fixed-salary earners. It approved the Sarla Verma approach to deductions and multipliers and fixed conventional-head amounts with periodic enhancement. Individual matters were returned to the appropriate Bench.

• DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

  30/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 979

  In the Amit Jethwa murder prosecution,105 of195 witnesses turned hostile amid documented intimidation complaints supported by CBI affidavits. The Court upheld exceptional intervention to secure a fair trial, but replaced a complete retrial with fresh examination of26 specified witnesses. It temporarily cancelled Solanki’s bail and set aside the direction for administrative action against the trial judge.

• SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THROUGH IT'S CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MEERUT & ANR.

  30/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 399

  Non-resident drilling contractors challenged inclusion of fixed mobilisation fees in receipts used for presumptive assessment under Section44BB. The Court upheld inclusion under their indivisible contracts for Indian oil exploration, while correcting the High Court’s exclusion of the charging provisions. In the separate Revenue appeal, compensation for tools lost by ONGC remained excluded.

• BIJENDER & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

  27/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 534

  Landowners sought enhanced compensation for large tracts acquired for HUDA residential and commercial sectors at Safidon. The Court upheld differentiation by location through the belting system and declined to adopt the highest small-plot sale price mechanically. Assessing the evidence as a whole, it enhanced both categories’ per-acre rates and retained statutory benefits.

• KAMAL KANT JAIN versus SURINDER SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

  27/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 1128

  The courts below refused specific performance of a1978 property sale solely because the agreement provided double earnest-money repayment without expressly mentioning specific performance. The Court held that this payment secured performance and supplied no alternative right to default. It decreed performance on the purchaser’s undertaking to payRs10crore in view of the long passage of time.

• VISHNU BHAGWAN AGRAWAL & ANR. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

  26/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 278

  The Court restored an umpire’s award for fire-damaged jute stock after the courts below rejected increased insurance cover and the valuation adopted. Acceptance and adjustment of the enhanced premium supported estoppel by conduct, while the purchase evidence supported the valuation. These were permissible arbitral findings under the1940 Act.

• SUNAINA SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMUAND KASHMIR & ORS.

  26/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 261

  Promotee Excise and Taxation Officers were given seniority from earlier promotional-quota vacancies although they had never worked in those higher posts before their regular promotion. The Court held that the J&K rules required both an available vacancy and actual service against the higher post. It restored the Single Judge’s decision rejecting retrospective promotion and seniority.

• NARENDRA & ORS. versus AJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS.

  26/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 746

  Purchasers sought possession of two rooms occupied by a relative who asserted adverse possession based on40years’ residence. The Court held that the plea lacked the necessary particulars and proof of hostile ownership and that the occupation was permissive. It reversed the High Court’s factual reassessment in second appeal and restored the first appellate decree.

• POORANLAL & ANR versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  25/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 221

  The Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of acquittal of two men for a fatal lathi assault. The deceased’s FIR and dying declaration supported their distinct involvement despite the final acquittal of three others. Conviction for culpable homicide under Section304PartII read with Section34 and five-year rigorous imprisonment was maintained.

• SURESH KUMAR WADHWA versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

  25/10/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 1

  A successful bidder withdrew after the State’s acceptance letter introduced previously undisclosed lease-rent conditions. The Court held that he could reject those unilateral additions and recover his security. The auction notice also contained no forfeiture power. It ordered refund ofRs3lakh with9per cent interest from1February1996 and costs.

• GUJARAT URJA VIIKAS NIGAM LIMITED versus SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR POWER COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

  25/10/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 115

  The Gujarat Commission extended a solar project’s tariff control period through inherent powers despite the power-purchase agreement’s lower-tariff consequence for delayed commissioning. In concurring opinions, the Court held that inherent procedural powers could not supply that substantive relief. It set aside the extension while preserving any legally available application for tariff redetermination.

• KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus PRADIP KUMAR GHOSH & OTHERS

  24/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 229

  A 1993 order required the State to acquire long-requisitioned Kolkata premises within six months or release them. Acquisition followed in 1996 without a release order. The Court held that the earlier direction neither quashed requisition nor provided automatic lapse or barred later statutory acquisition, and restored dismissal of the owners’ challenge.

• ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I, NEW DELHI versus MIS. E-FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC.

  24/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 157

  The Revenue alleged that two US e-Funds companies had Indian permanent establishments through their Indian subsidiary’s outsourcing operations. The Court held that the evidence established neither premises at their disposal nor services furnished by them in India, and no agency foundation had been laid. It also rejected reliance on a year-specific mutual-agreement settlement as a precedent.

• INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF A INDIA LTD versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND OTHERS

  24/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 199

  The Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal could not invoke Section5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay beyond30days in a Section30(1) appeal against a Recovery Officer’s order. The statutory scheme applied limitation provisions to original recovery applications and separately authorised condonation in appellate-tribunal appeals, but supplied no corresponding power here.

• LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SANJEEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

  24/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 208

  In a long-pending commercial suit for specific performance, an alleged assignee sought addition as a plaintiff after 27 years without explaining the delay. The Court held that leave to continue under Order XXII Rule 10 required judicial discretion and could not defeat the defendant’s accrued defences. It set aside the impleadment and amendment order.

• FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  13/10/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 724

  The Court distinguished establishment of District Mineral Foundations from enforceability of mining lessees’ contributions. Contributions could not be demanded from 12 January 2015 before rates were prescribed. It fixed different commencement rules for coal-related and other minerals, struck down the 2016 backdating notification and directed adjustment, rather than refund, of premature payments.

• INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus STATE OF KER,ALA & ORS.

  13/10/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 618

  In the challenge to exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from Sabarimala, the Court considered only whether a larger Bench was required. It formulated five questions concerning equality, religious freedom, denominational status and statutory validity, and directed placement before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench.

• BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORS versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

  13/10/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 597

  Partners challenged wealth-tax valuation of their firm’s owner-occupied Alpana Cinema, arguing that income capitalisation was mandatory for a running business. The Court held that Section 7(2)(a) was enabling and optional. It upheld the officer’s choice to obtain a departmental valuation and adopt the land-and-building method in the circumstances.

• BHARAT DEEP SETHI versus SONIA TAK.KAR

  12/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 531

  A tenant challenged interim use-and-occupation charges of Rs1.25 lakh per month while his eviction revision remained unheard on the merits. Without resolving the parties’ substantive disputes, the Court substituted Rs40,000 per month from June 2017, remitted the revision for fresh consideration and protected against coercive steps until disposal.

• P. KARUPAIAH (D) THR versus THE GENERAL MANAGER THRUUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

  12/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 557

  A transport driver reinstated after acquittal in a criminal case claimed back wages for 21 July 1994 to 31 August 1999. The Court upheld their denial because reinstatement did not automatically confer back wages and the employee had produced no supporting evidence of nonemployment during the disputed period.

• COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE versus MIS KARNATAKA SOAPS & DETERGENTS LTD.

  12/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 148

  The manufacturer made liquid agarbathi perfume in Bangalore and transported it to Mysore for use in agarbathis. The Court held that the product was marketable and excisable, notwithstanding captive transfers. The 1999 Board circular concerning nonmarketable compounds in continuous manufacture supplied no exemption for this stored and transported perfume.

• MS. INDIRA JAISING versus THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

  12/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 478

  The Court upheld the constitutional validity of senior-advocate designation while requiring a fairer and more objective process. Its 2017 directions established permanent committees and secretariats, public notice, interviews and a points framework for the Supreme Court and High Courts, with final consideration by the Full Court. Related Meghalaya petitions were closed with liberty to reconsider the challenged changes.

• HIMANGNI ENTERPRISES versus KAMALJEET SINGH AHLUWALIA

  12/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 139

  In this 2017 decision, the Court upheld refusal to refer a landlord’s eviction, rent-arrears and injunction suit to arbitration despite a clause in the expired lease. Applying Natraj Studios and Booz Allen, it held the civil suit maintainable, including where the premises were exempt from rent-control legislation, and directed trial on the merits.

• INDEPENDENT THOUGHT versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  11/10/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 821

  In a public-interest challenge confined to married girls below eighteen, the Court read down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC so that a husband’s sexual acts with his wife below eighteen were not exempt from rape law. The concurring opinions relied on equality, dignity, bodily integrity and child-protection statutes. The judgment operated prospectively and left adult marital rape undecided.

• EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. versus PRATIVA BISWAS & ORS.

  11/10/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 85

  Employees absorbed into Eastern Coalfields challenged fixation of their basic pay below the amount drawn with their former employer. Their chosen absorption option protected both basic pay and total emoluments. Increased allowances could not justify reducing basic pay, particularly after an earlier binding judicial direction. The employer’s appeal was dismissed.

• NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR versus RAMESHWAR LAL & ANR.

  10/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 133

  A municipal body challenged a permanent injunction protecting land held under a patta granted to the plaintiff’s grandfather. The first appellate court and High Court found the grant and possession proved, while the municipality failed to prove cancellation, repayment or that the patta concerned different land. The Supreme Court declined to disturb those supported factual findings and dismissed the appeal.

• M/S. DURO FELGUERA, S. A. versus M/S. GANGAVARAM PORT LIMITED

  10/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 285

  Five separately awarded port-expansion contracts and a corporate guarantee each contained their own arbitration clause. A later memorandum clarifying technical and execution priorities did not merge them or incorporate the original tender’s arbitration clause. Applying Section 11(6A) as introduced in 2015, the Court constituted six separate tribunals with the same arbitrators: two international commercial and four domestic.

• SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  10/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 129

  An accused in a public-distribution food-grain misappropriation case obtained interim protection after depositing the alleged value, and was subsequently arrested and released on bail under the Court’s modified order. The investigating officer treated his denial of purchasing the grain as non-cooperation. The Court held that refusal to confess alone could not justify that conclusion and preserved liberty to seek cancellation for genuine investigative necessity.

• RAJESH KUMAR C. K. JAIN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 552

  The Sessions Court acquitted an accused charged with stealing and destroying a settlement bond from an official file. The High Court set aside the acquittal in revision and remanded the appeal. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal because the appellate court had fully considered the evidence, identified serious deficiencies in proof of the bond, and correctly excluded the alleged police confession.

• MANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 562

  A public-interest petition sought a CBI inquiry into Indian offshore accounts disclosed in the Panama Papers and investigation of alleged regulatory failures. The Court found that the existing black-money SIT’s mandate covered those concerns and that a Multi Agency Group was reporting to it. Recording assurances of continued reporting and compliance with directions, the Court declined further directions and disposed of the petitions.

• SANTHINI versus VIJAYA VENKETESH

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 557

  Answering a reference on video conferencing in matrimonial disputes, the three-Judge Bench by a two-to-one majority restricted its use in light of settlement duties and confidentiality. The majority prescribed prospective directions for Family Courts after settlement efforts fail, barred video-conferencing directions in transfer petitions, and overruled Krishna Veni Nagam to that extent. Chandrachud J dissented, favouring flexible use at any stage.

• STATE (NCT OF DELHI) versus BRIJESH SINGH @ ARUN KUMAR AND ANR.

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 899

  The State challenged discharge of two accused from MCOCA proceedings in Delhi. The Court rejected the lower courts’ view that only charge sheets cognized by Delhi courts could establish continuing unlawful activity. Nevertheless, an organised crime in Delhi remained essential, and the prosecution materials disclosed none. The High Court’s judgment was upheld for different reasons.

• NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 435

  The Court upheld specific performance of a genuine house-sale agreement after finding that a purported earlier agreement with the tenant-purchaser was fabricated to defeat it. It directed the subsequent purchaser to join the conveyance and the vendors to refund the consideration actually received from him. A limited execution inquiry could resolve the refund amount, and compliance was required within three months.

• STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS versus FR. WILLIAM FERNANDEZ ETC. ETC.

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 663

  In challenges concerning entry tax on foreign goods brought into local areas, the Court upheld the States’ competence under the then applicable Entry 52 of List II. The relevant Orissa, Kerala and Bihar enactments covered such goods. Customs import and local-area entry were distinct taxable events; release for home consumption ended import immunity. Orissa appellants received limited liberty to revive discrimination challenges.

• ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 86

  In the Delhi-NCR fireworks litigation, the Court postponed operation of its September 2017 relaxation of licence suspensions until 1 November 2017. The earlier suspension was allowed to operate through Diwali so its air-quality effect could be tested. Temporary licences already issued were suspended forthwith, and manufacturers’ and traders’ requests for further relaxation were rejected.

• PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED versus ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR.

  09/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 104

  Industrial undertakings claiming profit-linked deductions under Section 80-IA sought to omit depreciation from eligible profits for assessment years preceding the 2001 amendment. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s Full Bench ruling that depreciation must be deducted in computing the eligible profits, whether claimed or not. Mahendra Mills did not permit enhanced Chapter VI-A deductions through disclaiming depreciation.

• BIRBAL CHOUDHARY@ MUKHIYA JEE versus STATE OF BIHAR

  06/10/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 48

  Eleven convicts challenged their convictions arising from an organised abduction, prolonged confinement, dacoity and ransom demand. The Court accepted the victims’ identification and corroborating evidence, upheld common-intention liability for the participants and logistical supporters, and rejected sentencing and charge-defect objections. All appeals were dismissed, confirming the High Court’s convictions and twenty-year rigorous-imprisonment sentences.

• M/S. METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. versus KANCHAN MEHTA

  05/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 66

  In this 2017 decision on cheque-dishonour procedure, the Court emphasised compensation and summary disposal. It held that payment of the cheque amount with judicially assessed interest and costs could justify closure under Section 143 read with the principle of Section 258 CrPC, despite lack of consent to compounding. The appellants were permitted to seek fresh trial-court orders under the directions.

• DHARMABIRI RANA versus PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

  05/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 122

  A purchaser sought specific performance of an alleged agreement made by one brother as attorney for another. Both defendants denied title and authority. The first appellate court found execution, title and agency unproved and reversed the trial decree. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal because the trial court had failed to determine the essential right to transfer the property.

• NABHA POWER LIMITED (NPL) versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (PSPCL) & ANR.

  05/10/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 301

  Construing a competitively bid power-purchase agreement, the Court held that coal energy charges included washing and necessary transportation to the project site, and calorific value had to be measured there. It rejected additional incidental-cost heads and the claim for past interest. The Court explained strict limits on implied contractual terms but resolved this dispute through the express formula read as a whole.

• RAVI SINHA & ORS versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

  05/10/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 913

  Relatives and accused persons in the fodder-scam cases challenged orders making property attachments absolute under the 1944 Ordinance. Although prosecution could not continue against a deceased accused, the existing attachment was not disturbed where his inheriting son was himself convicted and facing another trial. The Court also rejected premature disposal objections and declined to reassess evidence supporting related attachments.

• S. MOHAMMED ISPAHANI versus YOGENDRA CHANDAK & OTHERS

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 29

  Landlords and a court bailiff were summoned under Section 319 CrPC in a prosecution concerning alleged damage and theft during execution of an eviction decree. The Court found no strong and cogent trial evidence implicating them. Investigative statements could only corroborate trial evidence and could not independently justify summoning. The High Court’s order was reversed and the Magistrate’s refusal restored.

• OM PRAKASH versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE AND ANR.

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 893

  An insurer repudiated a verified truck-theft claim because notice was delayed eight days. The owner explained that he had been assisting police efforts to trace the vehicle. The Court held that satisfactorily explained unavoidable delay could not mechanically defeat a genuine claim, reversed the consumer fora, and awarded the approved loss amount plus compensation and interest.

• DUSHYANT N. DALAL AND ANOTHER versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 448

  The Court considered interest on unpaid SEBI penalties and a disgorgement order. It held that statutory interest liability was substantive and prospective, but equitable interest under the Interest Act could support recovery from when penalties became due. Separately, the Dalals’ disgorgement order deliberately omitted future interest and instead imposed extended market debarment on default; the later interest demand could not rewrite that order.

• MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. versus D. SALI AND ORS.

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 14 S.C.R. 232

  A police officer challenged judgments that retrospectively promoted another officer ahead of him. The Court held that a 1997 increment-bar punishment could be considered because its operation overlapped the relevant 1998–2000 check period. The appellant had standing as his seniority was directly affected. The earlier governmental decision was restored and consequential promotion and seniority orders required revision.

• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus BALBIR SINGH MAINI

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 1073

  Revenue sought capital-gains tax on the full consideration promised under an unregistered joint-development agreement that failed for want of permissions. The Court held that the agreement could not trigger Section 2(47)(v), conferred no ownership-like enjoyment under clause (vi), and generated no accrued right to the unrealised consideration. Tax already paid on separately conveyed parcels was distinguished; Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.

• PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 12

  Accused persons sought quashing of an FIR alleging extortion and land transfers through forged documents after settling with the complainant. The Court restated the distinction between consensual compounding and inherent-power quashing, and the importance of societal harm. Given the serious allegations, absconding conduct and criminal antecedents, it upheld refusal to quash and dismissed the appeal.

• COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ORS. versus MIS AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD.

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 50

  An Additional Commissioner reopened declarations under Delhi’s 2013 tax amnesty scheme without delegated authority. The Court agreed that his notice was unauthorised, but permitted a fresh notice by the competent authority despite the ordinary one-year limit. The assessees had withheld the jurisdictional objection until after that period, although a timely objection would have allowed correction.

• THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. versus MIS. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. & ORS.

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 10 S.C.R. 1

  A cement manufacturer claimed reimbursement of peak-load exemption charges under a four-year industrial power-tariff freeze. The Court held that the promise concerned normal supply tariff, while peak-hour supply was a separately arranged special dispensation carrying a surcharge. The manufacturer was not entitled to reimbursement; any amount already reimbursed had to be returned with six per cent annual interest.

• KSB ALI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

  04/10/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 698

  Claimants asserting succession to historic Kokapet lands sought implementation of an Atiyat Muntakhab and challenged withdrawal of administrative memoranda. The Court upheld dismissal of their writ proceedings, citing abuse of repeated public-law remedies, unproved representative authority and heirship, and the limited scope of the appeals. It affirmed that the uncommunicated memoranda supplied no enforceable entitlement to the claimed relief.

• SRI CHITTARANJAN MAITY versus UNION OF INDIA

  03/10/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 722

  A railway contractor challenged an appellate order setting aside an arbitral award on a no-claims-certificate objection first raised in appeal. The Court rejected that belated objection and sustained the principal award, but disallowed interest under the contractual prohibition. Although the contractor had already withdrawn more than the principal, recovery of the excess was expressly prohibited on the case’s facts.

• PANKAJBHAI RAMESHBHAI ZALAVADIYA versus JETHABHAI KALABHAI ZALAVADIYA (DECEASED)

  03/10/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1028

  A plaintiff seeking cancellation of a sale deed mistakenly sued its purchaser after the purchaser’s death. Rejection of an Order XXII substitution application as inapplicable did not bar a later Order I Rule 10 application to add the heirs. The Court directed their impleadment as necessary parties, expressly leaving limitation and good-faith relation-back questions for trial.

• STATE OF GUJARAT versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

  22/09/2017 · [2017] 13 S.C.R. 25

  A manufacturer used taxable fuels to produce goods transferred to branches outside Gujarat. The Court held that the four-per-cent input-credit reductions for raw materials used in branch-transferred goods and for manufacturing fuel applied cumulatively when both conditions existed. The reduction could not exceed the credit available, limiting furnace-oil reduction to four per cent while permitting eight per cent for the higher-taxed fuels.

• TECHI TAGI TARA versus RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.

  22/09/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 956

  The NGT directed States to reconsider Pollution Control Board appointments and laid down appointment guidelines. The Supreme Court held those appointment disputes outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction and set its order aside. Sharing concerns over unsuitable appointees, it directed State executives to frame appropriate rules or guidelines within six months and preserved High Court quo warranto remedies.

• KUTCHI LAL RAMESHWAR ASHRAM TRUST EVAM ANNA KSHETRA TRUST THR. VELJI DEVSHI PATEL versus COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR & ORS.

  22/09/2017 · [2017] 9 S.C.R. 766

  A Collector declared disputed ashram property vested in the State by escheat, inferring the recorded owner’s death and absence of heirs. The Court held that Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act did not confer power to adjudicate disputed title and succession. It quashed the Collector’s order without validating the trust’s title, which remained a matter for the competent judicial forum.

• SHANTANU SITARAM @ ANIL DIVEKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  22/09/2017 · [2017] 8 S.C.R. 944

  A husband and another accused challenged convictions arising from the wife’s murder, asserting an unproved circumstantial chain and acquittal on conspiracy. The Court upheld findings that the robbery-by-strangers account was false and that recoveries, medical evidence and proved association completed the chain. Failure to establish conspiracy did not defeat murder liability based on proved common intention.

• THE STATE OF KARNATAKA versus M/S. M. K. AGRO TECH. PVT. LTD.

  22/09/2017 · [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1007

  A sunflower-oil producer claimed full input-tax credit despite selling exempt de-oiled cake produced by the same extraction process. The Court held that the Karnataka VAT partial-rebate provisions turned on sales of taxable and exempt goods, without distinguishing principal products from by-products. It reversed the High Court’s full-credit ruling and upheld application of statutory apportionment.

• PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

  22/09/2017 · [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1099

  A medical college challenged renewed debarment after conditional permission and successive inspections revealed staffing and clinical deficiencies. The Court declined appellate-style reassessment of expert findings and refused permission for 2017–18. It nevertheless protected the bank guarantee from encashment, ordered fresh assessment for 2018–19 with remedial opportunity, and allowed the 2016–17 students to complete their course.