Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2018

72 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• JAMILA BEGUM (D) THR. LRS. versus SHAMI MOHD. (D) THR. LRS. & ANOTHER

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1253

  The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a suit challenging a mortgage and subsequent sale, with alternative redemption relief. The registered sale and supporting evidence were not rebutted, the alleged oral gift lacked proof of delivery of possession, and fraud or undue influence was not established. The sale extinguished redemption rights against the purchaser, and the cancellation challenge was also time-barred on the plaintiff’s admitted knowledge.

• VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1273

  Tenants sought purchase of agricultural land after learning of their widowed landlady’s death, but their claims were rejected as outside the statutory period. The Supreme Court questioned whether earlier decisions had adequately considered the 1969 amendment’s protective purpose and the tenants’ knowledge of cessation of the landlord’s disability. It referred the issues to a larger Bench and directed status quo, without finally deciding the appeals.

• PRAKASH CHAND DAGA versus SAVETA SHARMA & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 936

  A seller remained the registered owner when the transferred car caused an accident within thirty days of sale. The Supreme Court held that the statutory reporting period did not exempt him from liability to third parties. For motor-accident claims the registered ownership definition governed, notwithstanding transfer of title and possession under civil law. The seller’s appeal against the insurer’s recovery right was dismissed.

• GUPTESWAR BEHERA versus STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1209

  The Supreme Court acquitted Gupteswar Behera of the charges arising from a fatal assault. After the High Court rejected the alleged eyewitness accounts, the prosecution depended on oral dying declarations. Unchallenged medical evidence about the deceased’s brief survival and unconsciousness conflicted with the time needed for the witnesses to arrive. The resulting doubt entitled this appellant to acquittal.

• JANHIT MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI RAIYANI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 860

  The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge concerning transferable development rights and increased floor-space use in Mumbai’s slum-rehabilitation scheme. The High Court had examined the planning framework and issued directions addressing amenities and complaints. No patent illegality or constitutional contravention warranting further interference was shown. An individual’s preferred planning policy could not be imposed on elected bodies by mandamus.

• HUKUM CHANDRA (D) THR. LRS. versus NEMI CHAND JAIN & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 909

  The Supreme Court upheld eviction of a shop tenant for the landlord’s son’s bona fide business need. Work undertaken by the son during the long litigation did not defeat the need established at filing. An adjacent shop later vacated was required for another son and did not supply suitable alternative accommodation. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed with three months to vacate.

• M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1241

  Manufacturers and dealers challenged motor-vehicle tax on vehicles held in their businesses and penalties for delayed payment. The Supreme Court sustained the Bihar levy: possession of road-suitable vehicles attracted the distinct charge, unaffected by the central amendment removing manufacturers from the definition of dealer. The statutory penalty for delayed payment was also upheld after notice and hearing.

• GANGAPPA AND ANR. versus FAKKIRAPPA

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 603

  The Supreme Court held that a court admitting insufficiently stamped instruments under the Karnataka Stamp Act lacked discretion to reduce the prescribed tenfold penalty, unlike the Deputy Commissioner’s statutory powers. Nonetheless, to avoid further delay on the particular facts, it approved payment of the full deficit duty with twice that deficit as penalty, as ordered by the trial court, while affirming the High Court’s statutory interpretation.

• V. RAVI KUMAR versus STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SALEM, TAMIL NADU & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 828

  The Supreme Court restored investigation into allegations that cotton entrusted to a mill had been sold and documents fabricated. The commercial setting and withdrawal of an earlier complaint did not justify quashing a later complaint disclosing prima facie offences. The High Court had improperly assessed disputed facts at the quashing stage. Further investigation was directed in accordance with law.

• H. K. SINGLA versus AVTAR SINGH SAINI & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1223

  A cooperative society’s secretary challenged conditional interim relief in his pending appeal against punishment for non-compliance with a consumer order against the society. The Supreme Court questioned, without finally deciding, his personal liability where no payment order had been made against him personally. It suspended the imprisonment pending the State Commission’s decision and preserved lawful recovery against the society in liquidation.

• URVASHIBEN & ANR. versus KRISHNAKANT MANUPRASAD TRIVEDI

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1242

  The Supreme Court upheld refusal to reject a specific-performance plaint concerning an agreement twenty-five years earlier. No performance date was fixed and the plaintiff pleaded notice of refusal only in 2017. On those averments the limitation bar was not apparent; correctness of the claimed refusal date required trial. The Court left limitation and all other merits open for independent adjudication.

• MANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus NARENDRA DAMODARDAS MODI & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 840

  In its 14 December 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed public-interest petitions challenging procurement of 36 Rafale aircraft and seeking investigation. Applying restrained judicial review appropriate to defence procurement, it found no basis to intervene on the decision-making process, pricing or selection of Indian offset partners. The Court expressly confined its views primarily to the Article 32 jurisdiction invoked in these petitions.

• AKHIL BHARTVARSHIYA MARWARI AGARWAL JATIYA KOSH & ORS. versus BRIJLAL TIBREWAL & ORS.

  14/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 870

  The Supreme Court set aside orders enlarging the land to be conveyed to flat purchasers through a note for speaking to the minutes. That procedure permitted correction of transcription or clerical errors, not substantive modification of the decree. The purchasers’ pleadings and decree supported conveyance of 1009.70 square metres, rather than the larger plot. The deemed conveyance was modified accordingly.

• DR. ASHWANI KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  13/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1286

  The Supreme Court adopted continuing mandamus to monitor senior citizens’ rights to dignity, shelter and health and implementation of the 2007 welfare legislation. Initial directions required district-level information on old-age homes and geriatric facilities, publicity planning, Central directions and review, and reconsideration of pension schemes. No fixed enhanced pension was awarded; reconsideration remained subject to financial availability and economic capacity.

• STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus LEELA RAM @ LEELA DHAR

  13/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 621

  The Supreme Court restored a murder conviction and life imprisonment for an axe blow to the deceased’s skull. Consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence and recovery of the bloodstained weapon established the respondent’s role. The High Court’s inference of a sudden, unpremeditated incident lacked evidentiary support. A single blow did not by itself justify reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS I.A. NO. 26542 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013 versus .

  13/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1230

  The Supreme Court reiterated existing protections for prisoners sentenced to death, including the restricted meaning of that status under section 30 of the Prisons Act. Prisoners retained rights to humane treatment and reasonable meetings with lawyers, family and mental-health professionals. States and Union Territories were directed to conform prison rules to these protections; remaining issues were left to the Justice Amitava Roy Committee.

• BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED versus SURYANARAYANAN & ANR.

  13/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 950

  The Supreme Court rejected automatic return of seized alloy moulds to the person from whose premises they were recovered after the criminal case ended in acquittal. His title was seriously disputed and required civil adjudication. Custody was to remain with BSNL, which was permitted to auction the goods after preserving a sample and accounting for the proceeds, subject to the competent civil court’s directions.

• BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF versus ASHWIN DESAI

  12/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1214

  A landlord’s possession suit under a 1992 registered lease faced rejection for want of notice under the later West Bengal tenancy legislation. The Supreme Court did not decide which enactment governed. Given the preliminary stage of the suit, it directed the trial court to frame and decide a preliminary issue on maintainability and applicability of the competing enactments.

• M. A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA

  12/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 296

  On reopened review, the Supreme Court commuted a death sentence for six murders to life imprisonment. The sentencing decisions had overlooked the probability of reform and the convict’s socio-economic circumstances and had described him as a hardened criminal without supporting material. Unsupported impressions of collective conscience were also rejected. The conviction remained undisturbed.

• JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY MR. TEJ RAM MEENA versus JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

  12/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 926

  The Supreme Court restored an independently admitted insolvency proceeding against a company whose winding-up matter remained before the High Court. Omission of the transfer rule concerning BIFR references did not automatically transfer those matters. That issue did not defeat the financial creditor’s separate application made before any winding-up order. The Insolvency Code prevailed, and the NCLT proceeding was to resume.

• RAJENDRA PRALHADRAO WASNIK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  12/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 585

  In reopened review confined to sentencing for a child’s rape and murder, the Supreme Court commuted death to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s normal life. The courts had not assessed the probability of reform, available DNA evidence had not been produced, and pending cases had wrongly been treated as aggravating circumstances. Later convictions and the overall record informed the direction against release for life.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus DYALU RAM

  11/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 941

  The Supreme Court set aside reinstatement directions concerning casual cooks paid from regimental funds. Applying the settled status of unit-run canteen employees, it held that they were neither government servants nor holders of civil posts under the Union, so the Central Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Their continued engagement remained for the regimental authorities, who could take a sympathetic view of their long service.

• UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus V. R. TRIPATHI

  11/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 281

  The Supreme Court held invalid the Railway Board’s exclusion of children born from a second marriage from consideration for compassionate appointment. Statutory legitimacy under the Hindu Marriage Act could not be confined to inheritance or disregarded through an arbitrary distinction between legitimate children. Consideration, rather than appointment, was directed, subject to financial need and the scheme’s other requirements.

• NIPUN SAXENA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  11/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 755

  The Supreme Court issued directions protecting the identity of rape survivors and children subjected to sexual offences. Protection extended to information permitting indirect identification, public access to FIRs and records, and pseudonymous appeals. It prescribed judicial safeguards for exceptional disclosure, distinguished adult written consent from child protection, and requested district one-stop centres. The petitions were disposed of only as to the issues addressed.

• C.B.I. versus PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY

  11/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 924

  In an appeal limited to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, the Supreme Court declined to determine the Act’s applicability at the initial stage of the pending prosecution. Adequate evidentiary material was needed. The parties could raise the issue after prosecution evidence, and the Magistrate was directed to decide the longstanding case within one year, uninfluenced by the cited observations.

• AMOL VITTHALRAO KADU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1227

  The Supreme Court modified a direction requiring the investigating officer to reimburse compensation paid by the State following an alleged custodial death. Proceedings to determine responsibility were still pending. The compensation payment remained intact, but the State’s recovery from the concerned erring officials was left open only as and when liability for the crime was fastened.

• COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA versus M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD.

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1192

  The Supreme Court sustained the Tribunal’s restoration of declared transaction values for imported aluminium scrap. The assessing authority had not supplied the required cogent, evidential basis for rejecting the prices actually paid. The Revenue’s request for a remand misconstrued the Tribunal’s reasoning: the enhancement itself lacked the necessary foundation. The Revenue appeals were dismissed.

• GANESH SUKHDEO GURULE versus TAHSILDAR SINNAR & ORS.

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 914

  The Supreme Court invalidated a village-panchayat no-confidence motion supported by only five valid votes. The statutory two-thirds threshold depended on all members entitled to sit and vote, rather than those present and voting. After excluding a disqualified member, eight remained entitled; two-thirds was 5.33, requiring six votes. The fraction could not be rounded down to reduce a statutory minimum.

• SHANTHAMALLESHAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1152

  The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of setting fire to a shed after finding material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and failure to consider additional defence documents admitted on appeal. Identification, witness presence and accounts of the premises and damage raised substantial concerns. The concurrent findings were perverse in the particular circumstances and sustaining them would cause miscarriage of justice.

• CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, SRI RAM MANDIR JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P versus S. RAJYALAXMI (DEAD) & ORS.

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1172

  The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a suit claiming ownership of premises adjoining a public temple. Municipal permissions and tax records might indicate possession but did not confer title; the temple-boundary entry likewise did not establish the plaintiffs’ ownership. Their inconsistent account and failure to answer the earlier endowment findings left their burden undischarged. The High Court’s contrary decree rested on erroneous appreciation of evidence.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus WASIF HAIDER ETC.

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1161

  The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals against acquittals arising from a fatal shooting during communal disturbances. Delayed and doubtful identification, incompatible recovery and medical material, disputed weapon evidence and other investigative failures prevented proof beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court’s acquittal was not perverse. The concurrent acquittal on the separate arms and explosives charges was also left undisturbed.

• JASWANT SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1312

  The Supreme Court set aside a Summary Court Martial decision and the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment because a sepoy was wrongly denied the legal assistance he sought at his own expense. Army Rule 129 conferred an option to obtain assistance, unrestricted to capital charges. The resulting loss of livelihood and liberty demonstrated prejudice. Further lawful steps remained open to the authorities.

• M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED versus AFTAB SINGH

  10/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 791

  The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging refusal to refer a homebuyer’s consumer complaint to arbitration. The 2015 amendment to section 8 narrowed judicial intervention but did not override additional or special statutory remedies, including the consumer remedy chosen here. The Court clarified that arbitration remained available where an entitled person did not opt for the additional statutory remedy.

• THE DEPOT MANAGER & ORS. versus SRI S. KRISHNA

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1263

  The Supreme Court set aside directions to re-engage a dismissed contract driver and grant continuity for regularisation purposes. His dismissal followed a departmental enquiry, rejected departmental challenges and an unsuccessful industrial dispute. The High Court mechanically extended a prior ruling without addressing these facts. Continuity could not be awarded while the termination remained in force.

• NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus RAJESHWAR SHARMA AND ORS.

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1181

  The Supreme Court rejected an insurance claim for demolition damage because the policy excluded destruction by order of a lawfully constituted authority. The insured’s own pleadings established that the Municipal Corporation carried out the demolition. The exclusion concerned action under that authority, rather than a prior determination that its demolition was lawful. The separate civil suit challenging the municipal action remained unaffected.

• THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC versus M. MARUTHI

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1216

  The Supreme Court set aside High Court directions to re-engage a dismissed contract conductor with continuity for regularisation purposes. The High Court had mechanically applied an earlier decision without addressing the distinct disciplinary and adjudicatory history: an enquiry, failed departmental appeal and Industrial Tribunal confirmation of termination. Those distinctions also required correction when specifically raised in review.

• APSRTC REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHIRABAD AND OTHERS versus A.U.M. RAO

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1217

  The Supreme Court rejected continuity of service granted to a contract driver whose termination after disciplinary enquiry and subsequent fresh engagement remained unchallenged. The High Court had extended a prior batch ruling without attending to the individual circumstances. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and directed that seniority run from fresh appointment; the connected appeal was disposed of on the same terms.

• THE DEPOT MANAGER versus SRI R. K. REDDY

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1236

  The Supreme Court set aside re-engagement and continuity directions granted to a contract driver whose dismissal followed an enquiry and unsuccessful departmental and Labour Court challenges. The High Court mechanically relied on an earlier batch ruling involving different enquiry circumstances. Continuity could not be granted while the termination remained in place. The Corporation’s appeal was allowed without costs.

• RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS. versus DWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1118

  The Supreme Court upheld non-maintainability of collective consumer complaints brought without the representative-action requirements of the 1986 Act and Order I Rule 8 CPC. Permission and procedure formed one statutory mechanism, which could not be bypassed to aggregate claims before a higher pecuniary forum. Given the lengthy proceedings already completed, the complainants could approach the State Commission using the existing pleadings and evidence.

• APSRTC & ORS. versus G. KONDAL RAO

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 316

  The Supreme Court set aside High Court directions to re-engage a contract conductor and grant service continuity for regularisation. He had been dismissed after departmental enquiry and unsuccessful departmental challenges, and approached the High Court without pursuing industrial-dispute remedies. The earlier batch ruling relied on did not address his individual circumstances, and continuity could not be granted without setting aside termination.

• STATE OF GUJARAT versus NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2597 OF 2018)

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1141

  On an application to modify its earlier judgment, the Supreme Court corrected the description of accused No.2 as a government servant. He was not one, but the recovery of bribe currency and anthracene traces supported conviction under the historical section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The earlier public-servant convictions were substituted and the one-year sentence reduced to six months.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus COL. (TS) P. D. POONEKAR

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1268

  The Supreme Court upheld pay and allowances for an Army doctor’s specially sanctioned twelve-month extension of study leave abroad. The later Army Instructions governing study leave provided full substantive-rank pay; the earlier unpaid-secondment provision did not justify denial. Outstanding dues with nine per cent interest and consequential retiral recomputation were directed within two months, with costs to the officer.

• APSRTC & ORS. versus SRI A. SANJEEV REDDY

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 614

  The Supreme Court set aside continuity of service granted to a contract conductor re-engaged after disciplinary termination. He had not challenged either the termination following enquiry or the fresh appointment. Reliance on an earlier batch decision overlooked those individual facts. Seniority was directed to count from the date of fresh appointment rather than being carried across the subsisting termination.

• THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC & ANR. versus B. VENKATAIAH

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1257

  The Supreme Court set aside continuity granted to a contract driver re-engaged after disciplinary termination. The termination and fresh appointment had not been challenged and adjudicated. The High Court could not simply extend an earlier batch ruling involving different enquiry circumstances. The respondent’s seniority was directed to run from fresh appointment.

• APSRTC & ORS. versus SRI K. SATHAIAH

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 275

  The Supreme Court rejected continuity of service granted to a contract driver following disciplinary termination and fresh engagement. Neither the termination after enquiry nor the fresh appointment had been challenged. Continuity could not be awarded without adjudicating those orders. The High Court had applied an earlier batch decision without considering the individual facts; seniority was directed to run from fresh appointment.

• GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SWARAN SINGH & ORS.

  07/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1131

  The Supreme Court dismissed a civil suit challenging cancellation of a restricted land sale and claiming protected ownership as subsequent purchasers. The competent authority’s order followed an opportunity of hearing and had attained finality; the statutory civil-jurisdiction bar applied. The High Court also failed to address the absence of mandatory notice to the State or leave to sue without it.

• K. LAKSHMINARAYANAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  06/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 689

  The Supreme Court upheld Central Government nominations to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly without mandatory concurrence of the elected territorial government. Neither the governing law nor an established constitutional convention required it. Nominated members could vote on budgets and no-confidence motions. The appeals were dismissed, subject to deletion of all recommendations in paragraph 5 of the High Court judgment.

• LAJPAT & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  06/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1107

  The Supreme Court remanded a quashing application because the High Court had recited legal principles without stating the factual controversy or explaining their application. A reasoned decision required the allegations, challenge and grounds for accepting or rejecting interference to be addressed. The Court expressed no view on the merits and directed fresh consideration after notice to both respondents.

• SOURABH BRALA AND OR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  06/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 901

  In pending proceedings brought by first-year MBBS students, the Supreme Court directed immediate handover of the college and all assets to Uttarakhand following the State’s takeover offer. Affiliation and regulatory permission remained to be obtained. Students could sit examinations only if both were granted. The premises were to be sealed and the matter listed for further hearing.

• THE CHAIRMAN V. O. CHIDAMBARANAR PORT TRUST & ORS. versus CAPT. PAUL NADAR BENNET SINGH

  06/12/2018 · [2018] 13 S.C.R. 942

  The Supreme Court sustained reinstatement of a port pilot whose Singapore competency certificate had been questioned, but reduced back wages to forty per cent. The appointment was on a regular basis, the port regulations contemplated equivalent qualifications, and he had passed the pilot-licence examination. Further certificate examination was unnecessary. The Court expressly confined its judgment to the special facts and said it should not serve as a future precedent.

• STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus M/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDING LIMITED & ORS.

  06/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1111

  After substantial payments during an execution appeal, the Supreme Court resolved the remaining interest dispute at both sides’ request without deciding the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. It directed payment of a rounded lump sum of Rs.600 crore based on eight per cent simple interest, with a specified deadline and conditional final settlement of claims under the two conciliation agreements.

• SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 665

  The Supreme Court directed recognition of a retired Air Force officer’s wife and daughter in his service certificate and extension of the benefits ordinarily available to a retired officer’s family. Although he married before permission or expiry of the prescribed waiting period, no disciplinary action or express rejection followed. The authorities identified no restriction on such marriage after retirement. Relief was confined to the family-benefits issue for which leave was granted.

• MAHENDER CHAWLA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 627

  The Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 with immediate effect and directed its enforcement throughout India as law under Articles 141 and 142 until suitable legislation. The Scheme provides threat-based protection through district competent authorities, confidentiality, identity protection and relocation. States and Union Territories were also directed to establish vulnerable witness deposition complexes in every district court by the end of 2019, with Central support.

• SANJAY KUMAR JHA versus PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS.

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 893

  The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s direction to allot an Indian Oil retail dealership to the second-ranked applicant. The High Court had resolved disputed land-location facts contrary to revenue reports and assumed, without adequate reasoning, that revised marks would place him first. Judicial review did not authorise a fresh comparative assessment of candidates. The High Court orders were set aside and the writ petition dismissed.

• VIVEK MUDGIL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1068

  The Supreme Court sustained cancellation of a principal’s appointment because he lacked the required ten years’ teaching experience on the application deadline. Foreign study leave did not count as teaching experience. A later exemption, granted without retrospective effect, did not cure that deficiency. The continuing availability of the statutory exemption power after the 1982 enactment was expressly left open.

• S C SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1075

  The Supreme Court rejected a university College Development Council director’s claim to continue after two three-year terms. The advertisement expressly limited tenure, and the governing UGC guideline applied that limit to all appointees, not only deputationists. The High Court’s unchallenged decision preserving the Council did not entitle this appellant to remain its director.

• M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus UNION OF INDIA

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 676

  The Supreme Court set aside condonation of delay in the Union’s challenge to an arbitral award and dismissed the Section 34 petition as time-barred. Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not extend the prescribed three months and further thirty-day window. Section 14 could apply to qualifying proceedings in the wrong forum, but even allowing that exclusion left the filing beyond the statutory limit. Administrative difficulties could not justify further extension.

• COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 489

  The Supreme Court upheld quashing of CCI’s investigation direction as premature. TRAI first had to determine the disputed technical and contractual jurisdictional facts concerning interconnection between Reliance Jio and incumbent operators. CCI’s competition jurisdiction remained available at the subsequent stage. Although the direction was administrative, a jurisdictional writ challenge was maintainable; the High Court’s findings on the merits were inappropriate.

• ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS ETC versus SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD AND ORS ETC

  05/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1082

  The Supreme Court upheld exclusion of diploma holders who lacked the advertised Matric-with-ITI qualification for Technician-III posts. Without an enabling rule, a higher qualification did not necessarily presuppose the prescribed one. Correcting inconsistent scrutiny did not change the selection rules. The appellants nevertheless received four years’ age relaxation for other State posts advertised up to 30 November 2020.

• SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  04/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1056

  The Supreme Court affirmed the surviving appellants’ convictions and sentences for murder with common intention, house-breaking and theft. The proved circumstances included motive, movement of the accused in a van, recovery and identification of stolen property, the weapon, bloodstained clothes and the shop’s lock and key. Together they established the complete incriminating chain. No perversity, material evidentiary omission or illegality warranted interference with the concurrent findings.

• V. K. GIRIJA V. RESHMA PARAYIL & ORS. versus RESHMA PARAYIL & ORS.

  04/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1036

  The Supreme Court upheld the claim to appointment by transfer as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics). Under Chapter XXXII, Rule 4(2), vacancies rather than total cadre strength governed the residual 1:3 transfer/direct-recruitment ratio. The earlier general cadre-strength rule did not displace this later statutory scheme. Appointment of the respondent was directed from 1 January 2019, with a case-specific option to adjust the displaced direct recruit against the respondent’s existing post.

• SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY versus M/S. OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.

  04/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1022

  The Supreme Court upheld setting aside an ex parte reinstatement award and directing fresh adjudication. The Tribunal failed to fix and intimate the time for serving the workman’s written statement on the company as required by Rule 20B(5). Expiry of thirty days after publication did not by itself remove the power to recall the award. Rule 21 did not invariably require a further notice before proceeding ex parte, but that did not cure the separate service breach.

• SP SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  04/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1005

  The Supreme Court upheld the contractual appointment of a departmental arbitrator in proceedings commenced in 2013 and declined a second appointment through Section 11(6). The 2015 amendment did not govern those proceedings on these facts. It nevertheless set aside termination for failure to file the claim, since no final warning against further adjournment had been given, and directed appointment under the contractual clause with a fresh opportunity to present the claim.

• MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ANR. versus PRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

  04/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1143

  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s power to recall an arbitrator’s appointment made during a Section 9 hearing on an unauthorised municipal officer’s consent. The contractual clauses provided internal dispute resolution, not arbitration, and the officer could not create a separate arbitration agreement. As no arbitration agreement arose, the Arbitration Act’s restriction on judicial intervention did not apply. Interim protection against encashment continued for four weeks to permit recourse to the appropriate forum.

• KANUBHAI BHAGVANBHAI NAYAK versus STATE OF GUJARAT

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 452

  The Supreme Court remanded a murder-conviction appeal because the High Court had affirmed the trial court without analysing the evidence or deciding the issues raised. A first appellate court must examine both facts and law and record findings addressing the challenge. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, left all merits issues open and requested a fresh decision preferably within six months.

• DILBAG RAI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1138

  The Supreme Court reversed quashing of criminal proceedings concerning an agreement to sell property. The High Court treated the matter as a mere refusal to execute a sale deed, overlooking investigation material supporting the allegation that the accused lacked title yet induced payment. The truth of that allegation required trial. The Court restored the proceedings without expressing any view on guilt or the merits of the accusation.

• STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAKESH KUMAR

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 415

  The Supreme Court set aside suspension of sentence and bail granted on the premise that possession of manufactured drugs could be prosecuted only under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The NDPS Act operates in addition to that Act, and even medical or scientific dealings must comply with NDPS requirements. Immediate custody was directed. The underlying conviction appeals remained for the High Court, with expedition requested and the observations confined to the present suspension appeals.

• DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION versus CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & OTHERS

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 433

  The Supreme Court dismissed Damodar Valley Corporation’s tariff appeal. Its surviving statutory entitlement to interest on capital had already been serviced through return on normative equity and interest on the loan component under the binding earlier directions. Additional interest on the whole capital was not warranted. The challenge to reducing normative loans by cumulative depreciation could not be reopened after the first round became final; that legal question was not answered on merits.

• MEERA MISHRA versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1205

  The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal concerning cancellation of a fair-price-shop licence and restored the statutory appeals for fresh decision. Having found the Commissioner’s order unreasoned, the High Court should either have decided the controversy on merits or remanded it. Simply setting aside the orders left the competing claims unexamined. The Commissioner was directed to hear all concerned and pass a reasoned order within three months of appearance.

• SANGEETA AGRAWAL & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 462

  The Supreme Court remanded an application challenging a chargesheet and dowry-death-related proceedings because the High Court had dismissed it without setting out the allegations, grounds of challenge or reasons for rejecting them. Quoting general Section 482 principles was insufficient. The High Court was directed to decide afresh after notice to both respondents. The substantive merits remained open.

• DR. JAGDISH PRASAD & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 459

  The Supreme Court remanded the appellants’ application to quash matrimonial criminal proceedings because the High Court had dismissed it by quoting general principles without examining the factual controversy or grounds urged. The High Court was required to apply the law to the facts and record findings. Its dismissal was set aside, with the merits of the complaint left open.

• OMVEER SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  03/12/2018 · [2018] 14 S.C.R. 456

  The Supreme Court set aside dismissal of a petition to quash criminal proceedings because the High Court recited legal principles without identifying the facts or deciding the grounds raised. The application was remanded for a fresh reasoned merits decision. The Court did not quash the complaint or express a view on the allegations.