Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2019

121 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 342

  Review of Akshay Kumar Singh’s convictions and death sentence in the December 2012 Delhi case was declined. His challenges to investigation, dying declarations, alibi and sentencing repeated matters already considered and disclosed no error apparent on the record. Unsupported media allegations and a former prison officer’s published opinion did not supply a review ground.

• JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 984

  The moderation committee could fix a qualifying cutoff for Paper III of the Jharkhand Eligibility Test after the advertisement. The governing UGC scheme expressly entrusted subject-wise cutoffs to that committee; the advertised Papers I and II threshold did not itself establish eligibility. In this scheme, the later cutoff did not amount to changing selection rules.

• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus BICHITRANANDA DAS

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 214

  Conversion charges for a government residential plot were payable at the rate prevailing when the final decision was taken after verifying policy compliance, rather than the earlier application date. The applicant’s unauthorised use of adjacent government land delayed eligibility, and merely applying conferred no vested right to conversion at the earlier rate.

• DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL versus THE SENIOR MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, MIDNAPUR BRANCH & ORS.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 333

  The Bank was ordered to compensate a school Rs.25 lakh for fraudulent transfers enabled by linking its cheque-operated accounts to the Principal’s personal internet banking without authorisation. Police investigation did not establish the suspected Principal complicity that had led consumer fora to limit relief to Rs.1 lakh. The later Rs.5 lakh loss was excluded because delayed formal reporting may have contributed to it.

• M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. versus M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 295

  The challenged arbitral award for unproductive machinery use was unintelligible and could not be sustained as a reasoned award. The Court distinguished inadequate reasons from unintelligibility and emphasised limited judicial review and the opportunity to cure defects under Section 34(4). Given more than twenty-five years of litigation, it ordered Rs.30 lakh in full settlement of the disputed claim instead of remitting the matter.

• MAYANK N SHAH versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 358

  The Court affirmed a salaried operations manager’s convictions for participating in bank fraud by knowingly presenting fabricated bills and documents. The allegation that the appellate amicus had formerly been junior to CBI counsel did not warrant remand on the record. His lower position in the conspiracy nevertheless justified reducing the two-year prison terms to one year, with all sentences concurrent.

• G H STANDARD CHARTERED BANK versus HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 368

  The Bank’s appeal against a decree enforcing two guarantees failed. Although the initial demand was inadequate, later correspondence sufficiently invoked the guarantees for losses from defective or omitted supply and contractual performance. The guarantees were unconditional and no recognised exception was asserted; the Bank could not adjudicate the underlying merits once a compliant demand was made.

• M/S DALMIA POWER LIMITED & ANR. versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, TRICHY

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1236

  The Department had to accept revised tax returns for AY 2016–2017 filed to implement NCLT-sanctioned amalgamation schemes even though the ordinary revision deadline had passed before final sanction. The schemes expressly permitted consequential revision, and the Department had not objected after notice. Assessment of the successor companies had to reflect the amalgamation and revised income.

• G H P. SINGARAVELAN & ORS. ETC. ETC versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPPUR AND DT & ORS. ETC. ETC.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 408

  Tamil Nadu drivers were entitled under the 1998 pay revision to Selection Grade Rs.4000–6000 and Special Grade Rs.4300–6000, rather than the higher brackets granted in some earlier cases. Non-speaking refusals of special leave did not establish a binding interpretation, and Article 14 did not require repetition of erroneous benefits. The same schedule entry governed the connected High Court drivers’ claims.

• G H M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE versus K. DEVAMANI & ORS.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 384

  The Puducherry excise regime permitted shifting an F.L.-1 licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal with competent prior approval and compliance with licence conditions. The expression from one place to another did not confine relocation to a single region. The Court upheld the permission and reversed the High Court’s restrictive interpretation.

• M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. versus ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786787 OF 2019 IN

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 252

  The Court dismissed review petitions concerning delayed-payment interest claims against the Assam State Electricity Board. Shanti Conductors had not pleaded and proved the acknowledgment necessary for a fresh limitation period under Section 19. Other petitioners showed neither post-commencement supplies nor an apparent error in the prior maintainability ruling. Review could not become a rehearing of decided issues.

• ANOKHILAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1196

  Convictions and sentences, including death, were set aside where legal-aid counsel was appointed on the day charges were framed and the trial concluded within a fortnight. Nominal representation without time to study the case and consult the accused denied meaningful assistance. The Court directed fresh consideration with liberty to revisit charges, recall witnesses and respond to forensic evidence, and prescribed norms for serious-case legal aid.

• RANA PRATAP SINGH versus VITTIYA EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI, DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER AND ORS.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 177

  The Court protected a clerk’s continuation where termination had followed another employee’s reversion, but that employee never returned to the post and retired in the promoted position. The clerk’s selection complied with the statutory process; his subsequent return was reinstatement rather than a fresh time-limited appointment. Dismissal of the other employee’s case as infructuous did not erase the vacancy on these facts.

• G H KANWAR PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1158

  Illegal-mining allegations could sustain police investigation and prosecution for theft and damage to public property even where statutory authorisation for cognizance under the mining enactment was absent. The offences have distinct ingredients. The Court preserved the IPC and public-property proceedings but clarified that mining-law prosecution and cognizance were not valid without the required authorisation, leaving factual guilt for trial.

• G H KHAJA BILAL AHMED versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

  18/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1174

  A preventive detention order was quashed because stale antecedent cases lacked a live nexus to an immediate preventive need, and the late production of an unserved confirmation order cast serious doubt on its existence at the relevant time. The single recent case and prospect of statutory bail did not supply a reasonable basis to predict renewed prejudicial activity or the necessity of detention.

• RAJ KUMARI AND OTHERS versus SURINDER PAL SHARMA

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 872

  The Court restored a preliminary partition decree after holding that the propounder had not proved a registered will excluding other heirs. Registration did not dispense with examination of an available attesting witness. Section 71 could not excuse failure to summon a witness merely because he was related to the opposing party; independently, the surrounding evidence left substantial suspicions about the document’s understood testamentary character unresolved.

• G H CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION versus M/S ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)JOINT VENTURE COMPANY

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1234

  The Court set aside appointment of an independent sole arbitrator where the railway contract prescribed a three-member tribunal selected through a panel procedure. On the facts, the Railways had not forfeited its appointment right. Retired railway officers were not ineligible merely because of former employment, and the contractor’s participation in selecting nominees distinguished cases involving unilateral appointment by an interested person.

• SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR. versus KAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 396

  The Court declined to restore a developer’s temporary injunction protecting alleged possession of land under an agreement of sale. Physical possession and payment of consideration were seriously disputed and required trial. An existing injunction against alienation or creation of third-party rights sufficiently protected the developer’s interest pending suit, which was directed to be expedited.

• DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 273

  Work-experience weightage for Bihar medical recruitment extended beyond hospitals directly run by the State Government to non-private public hospitals within Bihar, including Central Government, local-government and public-authority hospitals. Participation in selection did not bar a challenge to misconstruction of the governing rules. A fresh merit list was ordered, without treating weightage as determining suitability.

• UNIVERSITY OF DELHI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1259

  The Court upheld refusal to condone the University’s 916-day delay in appealing dismissal of its challenge to residential development on land leased to DMRC. Changes in the Vice-Chancellor’s office and internal deliberations did not explain the prolonged inaction. Public-body status and an assertion of public interest did not dispense with sufficient cause, particularly where delay affected accrued rights and public transport funding.

• CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD versus M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 157

  The Housing Board remained liable for 30% of a flat purchaser’s refund, interest and general compensation where both it and the developer caused the project’s failure. Contractual fixed compensation payable by the developer alone did not govern the lump-sum mental-harassment award or costs. The Court upheld 10% interest and directed the Board to pay its outstanding share within eight weeks.

• MANJU versus STATE OF DELHI

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 151

  A mother convicted of murdering her newborn daughter was acquitted on benefit of doubt. The circumstantial chain was incomplete, the alleged motive based on the child’s sex lacked evidence, and the infant’s condition from birth and the mother’s drug-induced drowsiness had not been adequately considered. The post-mortem opinion alone did not establish the mother’s guilt on the whole record.

• G H M/S GENENTECH INC. & ORS. versus DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA & ORS.

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 318

  The Court restored interim conditions governing Reliance’s marketing of TrastuRel after the Division Bench relaxed them without considering both sides’ applications as previously directed. The established arrangement and balance of convenience should not have been disturbed before trial. Reliance could nevertheless participate without impediment in government tenders specifying the generic name Trastuzumab, and final disposal of the suit was expedited.

• MUNISH KAKKAR versus NIDHI KAKKAR

  17/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 169

  After prolonged separation, unsuccessful reconciliation and sustained litigation, the Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 on irretrievable breakdown despite the wife’s lack of consent. It did not treat breakdown as a statutory divorce ground or require a fresh determination of the cruelty allegations. Existing monthly maintenance continued, with liberty to seek variation through appropriate proceedings.

• MAHARAJA AGRASEN HOSPITAL & ORS. versus MASTER RISHABH SHARMA & ORS.

  16/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1185

  The Court affirmed liability of a hospital, two paediatricians and an ophthalmologist for failing to screen a premature infant for retinopathy of prematurity or advise the parents about necessary screening and follow-up, resulting in permanent blindness. The expert report rested on premises contradicted by the original records. Compensation was enhanced from Rs.64 lakh to Rs.76 lakh with supervised investments to protect the child’s welfare.

• PUNEET DALMIA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD

  16/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 134

  The Court granted conditional exemption from routine personal attendance to an accused who had travelled from Delhi to Hyderabad for weekly hearings since 2013. The seriousness of the charges did not prevent application of the established exemption principles. There was no evidence that he had attempted to delay trial, and attendance through counsel with enforceable undertakings could protect its progress.

• G H DSG versus AKG

  16/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 144

  The Court maintained an interim arrangement under which a twelve-year-old daughter resided with her father and her mother had specified visitation rights. After separately interviewing the parents and child, the Court found the child capable of an intelligent preference and unequivocal in wishing to remain with her father. Her welfare and well-being governed the decision; all findings remained prima facie at the intermediate stage.

• MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

  16/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1145

  The Court restored directions to redraw a Technician Grade-II selection list after scrutinising computer qualifications claimed as equivalent to the prescribed CCC certificate. Candidates’ self-declarations could not replace the recruiting authority’s assessment of equivalence. Participation in recruitment did not bar a challenge to inclusion of ineligible candidates, and representative impleadment sufficed for the systemic challenge. No direction was given to fill subsequent vacancies.

• SHAILENDRA RAJDEV PASVAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 270

  The Court set aside convictions imposed by the High Court after reversal of acquittals in a child-abduction and murder case. Contradictory last-seen testimony, uncertainty about identification and recovery of the body, a substantial time gap and an unreliable alleged extra-judicial confession failed to form a complete chain of circumstances. The trial court’s reasoned acquittals had not warranted reversal.

• PRANAV VERMA & OTHERS versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 43

  The Court declined to invalidate a judicial-service examination but used Article 142 to award uniform grace marks in two civil-law papers after expert review showed unduly strict marking and severe time constraints. It rejected fresh re-evaluation and disclosure of written marks before interviews. Revised results and completion of selection were directed, followed by recruitment for remaining and anticipated vacancies.

• SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS DIVISION OF NIRMA LTD.) versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 24

  The Court held that an insurer could not defend repudiation before the consumer forum on delayed intimation when its repudiation letter relied solely on another ground. Appointment of a surveyor did not itself waive policy conditions, but that distinct proposition did not permit later addition of grounds absent from the letter. The insured was awarded the surveyor-assessed loss with interest.

• SANJAI KUMAR & ORS. versus DR. PRABHAT KUMAR ETC.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1111

  The Court closed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with interim and final orders governing Uttar Pradesh trainee-teacher recruitment. Inclusion in a list of eligible candidates did not establish that every listed candidate had to be appointed regardless of district choices, cutoffs and participation. The reasons for limited selection had been on record before final judgment, and the State’s subsequent explanation disclosed no violation of the Court’s orders.

• SIRAJ AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1131

  The Court held that a Junior Engineer selected through an advertised competitive process against a sanctioned post could count uninterrupted service preceding regularisation for promotion. Absence of Public Service Commission concurrence made his appointment irregular, rather than illegal, on these facts. Given the relaxation for engineering graduates and treatment of similarly selected juniors, denial of promotion was set aside and consequential benefits directed.

• THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR. versus M JEYANTHI

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 207

  The Court held that a police constable could not withdraw her resignation after its acceptance under Rule 35A. The three-month notice requirement did not preserve a withdrawal right after valid acceptance, and the authority could give acceptance effect before notice expired. The provision for cancellation if adverse vigilance material emerged did not render acceptance incomplete. Reinstatement was reversed, with liberty to seek fresh appointment through lawful selection.

• SRI PRABODH CH. DAS AND ANR. versus MAHAMAYA DAS AND ORS.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 19

  The Court set aside dismissal of a second appeal on merits when the appellants’ counsel was absent. Order XLI Rule 17(1), read with its Explanation, permits dismissal for default of appearance but does not empower adjudication against the absent appellant on merits. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.

• RAJNISH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 68

  The Court restored regularisation of judicial-establishment employees appointed before 31 December 2001 who had served for about twelve years when their cases were examined. The committee’s recommendation was grounded in the High Court circular and relevant regularisation principles. Annulment by a successor District Judge without hearing also violated natural justice. Reinstatement and continuity were ordered, but back wages for the period out of employment were denied.

• SHYAM MADAN MOHAN RUIA & ORS. versus MESSER HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 396

  Applying the larger Bench ruling in Nusli Veville Wadia, the Court set aside conflicting High Court decisions that had determined limitation as a preliminary issue under Maharashtra’s Section 9A CPC. The share-title suit was directed to restart from framing of issues, with limitation considered alongside the other issues. Neither the merits of the competing title claims nor the correct limitation outcome was decided.

• NINGAPPA THOTAPPA ANGADI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 37

  The Court restored land-acquisition compensation at Rs.10 lakh per acre to claimants who approached it 2,928 days late, giving parity with similarly situated landowners under the same acquisition. A pragmatic approach to fair compensation justified condoning delay, while equities were balanced by denying interest on enhanced compensation and the statutory amount for the period of delay.

• M/S. DAFFODILLS PHARMACEUTICALS & ANR.V. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 125

  The Court quashed an indefinite direction prohibiting local medicine purchases from a supplier because it operated as debarment without notice or hearing. Pending criminal proceedings concerning a former director did not justify unilateral exclusion of the company. Limited review of public contracts did not shield a flagrant denial of natural justice; the earlier rejection of the supplier’s tender was a distinct matter.

• S. KRISHNA SRADHA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 93

  Answering a reference concerning wrongful denial of MBBS admission to a diligent, faultless and more meritorious candidate, the Court held that compensation need not be the sole remedy after the admission cutoff. It permitted narrowly defined restitutionary admission relief in the same or following academic year, with safeguards and time limits. Contrary decisions including Jasmine Kaur were overruled to that extent; postgraduate medical admissions were expressly excluded.

• SURAJ JAGANNATH JADHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  13/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 84

  In an appeal confined to the nature of the offence, the Court maintained a husband’s murder conviction for pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her alight as she tried to escape. The evidence showed conscious conduct, not the claimed incapacitating intoxication. Subsequent efforts to extinguish the fire did not justify reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• G H JASMEET KAUR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  12/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1144

  The Court disposed of cross-border custody proceedings on agreed arrangements for the mother and two children to return to Connecticut. It expressly left jurisdiction undecided. Directions covered passports, return, housing, access, financial support, division of clinic assets, schooling and withdrawal of Indian divorce proceedings, with further custody arrangements subject to the competent United States court.

• G H UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus WING COMMANDER S.P. RATHORE

  11/12/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 990

  The Court held that an Air Force officer retiring on superannuation with disability assessed below twenty percent was not entitled to disability pension under the governing provisions. Rounding off applies only after entitlement is established and cannot raise a sub-threshold assessment into eligibility. Ram Avtar extended rounding off to eligible superannuated personnel but did not decide or remove the threshold requirement.

• CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY versus D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS

  11/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1095

  The Court held that premium floor-space-index charges were payable at the guideline land value prevailing when the Government approved the revised building plan. Filing an application or forwarding a recommendation did not create a vested right to earlier rates. No undue administrative delay was established, and decisions concerning delayed land-use conversion applications were distinguishable. CMDA could recover the balance charges under its rules.

• ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE versus KOTA LINGESWARA RAO & ORS.

  11/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 79

  The Court reversed a direction to appoint the next-ranked candidate to a Junior Lecturer vacancy left by a selected candidate’s non-joining. Amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules discontinued the waiting-list system and required fallout vacancies to be notified in the next recruitment. Rule 7’s reference to selection according to rules did not override that mandate. The claimant’s four-year delay independently defeated relief.

• RAMJI SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  11/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 253

  The Court upheld reversal of acquittals where prompt reporting, credible eyewitnesses and medical findings proved a fatal armed attack. The trial court had treated a general site plan as exact and drawn unsupported inferences about injuries and missing witnesses. Relationship and enmity did not discredit otherwise reliable testimony, and investigative failures concerning ballistic proof did not defeat the direct, medically corroborated account.

• RAJENDRA DIWAN versus PRADEEP KUMAR RANIBALA & ANR.

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1089

  The Court declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act unconstitutional because the State Legislature could not confer a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. Presidential assent did not cure legislative incompetence or satisfy Article 138(2). The Supreme Court’s discretionary special-leave power was distinct from a mandatory statutory appeal, while the High Court’s surviving judicial review remained supervisory rather than an alternative appeal.

• SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHI versus STATE OF UP & ANR

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 829

  The Court restored an order summoning the deceased woman’s husband under Section 319 CrPC on evidence emerging at trial. The Sessions Judge had carefully assessed testimony about harassment, the circumstances of the death within the matrimonial home and the subsequent events against the governing evidentiary threshold. Neither the existing prosecution of another person for abetment of suicide nor the absence of an earlier protest petition precluded the statutory power.

• GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 661

  The Court declined to quash a criminal-defamation complaint concerning posts from 2008, holding that the then-existing Section 79 IT Act did not immunise an intermediary against IPC defamation. Whether Google India was the relevant intermediary required trial. The High Court’s adverse findings on failure to remove the posts were set aside, and defences not finally resolved remained open. The decision distinguished the later substituted safe-harbour regime and Shreya Singhal.

• TRIJUGI NARAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS versus SANKOO (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1049

  The Court held that a perpetual leasehold Nazul property acquired by the former ruler of Maihar formed part of his impartible estate, rather than coparcenary property. Loss of sovereignty and the Hindu Succession Act did not create previously nonexistent coparcenary rights in the property. The contrary presumption was not established merely by its location outside the princely State or its leasehold character. The ruler could dispose of it by will.

• KUNJAN SADANA & ANR. versus MAHESH KUMAR & ORS

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1128

  The Court enhanced compensation for the death of a nineteen-year-old self-employed bachelor by adding forty percent for future prospects and applying the multiplier corresponding to his age, rather than his mother’s. After deduction for personal expenses and allowance under conventional heads, the operative additional award was rounded to Rs.1.60 lakh with interest.

• RAJA versus STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1187

  The Court upheld convictions arising from a violent dacoity on the reliable identification of five injured eyewitnesses. Their close contact with the assailants afforded an enduring opportunity to observe them. Identification in court was substantive evidence, while the test identification parade provided corroboration. Alleged prior exposure of some accused to some witnesses did not, on the whole record, invalidate the dependable court identification.

• RAM MURTI YADAV versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 818

  The Court upheld compulsory retirement of a judicial officer after review of his entire service record, including an unchallenged censure arising from a vigilance inquiry. Subsequent promotion did not erase relevant adverse material for compulsory-retirement assessment. Judicial review remained confined to the established narrow grounds and could not substitute an appellate reassessment of service material. The Court also distinguished bona fide judicial error from conduct calling integrity into question.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus SUDARSHANA CHATTERJEE

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 849

  The Court set aside a remand for reconsideration of retirement benefits that constrained the State by earlier findings, and also reversed an order summoning the Principal Secretary to explain a fresh speaking decision. The employee’s conduct in joining another State’s institution without sanctioned leave required consideration. Her challenge to the fresh rejection remained for the High Court to decide independently after hearing both sides.

• SRI CHANAPPA NAGAPPA MUCHALAGODA versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 556

  The Court assessed a heavy-vehicle driver’s functional disability at one hundred percent despite a lower whole-body medical assessment, because his permanent leg injuries prevented further driving and other manual employment. Compensation was recalculated using the accepted monthly income and age factor, with an additional lump sum for hospitalization and medical expenses.

• ABCD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1

  The Court declined to transfer investigation of a sexual-offence FIR and a counter-FIR to a central agency after reviewing investigative steps and available judicial protection. It left the criminal matters for independent consideration on their merits. Separately, apparent untruthfulness in a sworn account of a later road incident prompted notice for possible contempt and statutory action, without a final finding of liability.

• BGS SGS SOMA JV versus NHPC LTD.

  10/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 742

  The Court held that returning a Section 34 petition for presentation to the competent court was not an appealable refusal to set aside an award under Section 37. It also held that the parties’ choice of New Delhi as the arbitral seat conferred exclusive supervisory jurisdiction there, notwithstanding a cause of action elsewhere. The High Court judgment was set aside and presentation of the award challenges in New Delhi directed.

• M/S. THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO. LTDNER OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

  09/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1057

  The Court upheld recovery of differential excise duty following finalisation of provisional assessments. The assessee had voluntarily furnished B-13 bonds and bank guarantees and filed returns endorsed as provisional while challenging duty on captive consumption. It could not subsequently insist on a separate provisional-assessment order or a notice under Section 11A. The Delhi High Court’s disposal order did not release the bonds or require a notice where the governing procedure did not require one.

• CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR ONGC LTD. & ORS. versus CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS.

  09/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 774

  The Court held that ONGC was not the service provider to employees claiming losses under a contributory post-retirement scheme administered by a separate trust. It set aside the contrary consumer-forum findings and the National Commission’s costs. Nevertheless, ONGC was directed to honour its counsel’s undertaking to pay the substantive amounts, given the small sums and the retirees’ long wait. Other questions concerning consumer status and consideration were left undecided.

• DR. TANVI BEHL versus SHREY GOEL & ORS.

  09/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 781

  The Court referred to a larger Bench the constitutional permissibility of domicile or residence-based reservation in State-quota postgraduate medical admissions and the consequences of either answer. It identified unresolved questions about the interaction of precedents, NEET merit and a Union Territory having only one medical college. The validity of Chandigarh’s particular eligibility clauses was left open, and existing interim orders continued.

• MALARVIZHI & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

  09/12/2019 · [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1086

  The Court partly allowed an appeal for enhancement of motor accident compensation. It used the deceased’s highest proved income-tax return rather than an estimate based on agricultural acreage, declined to add depreciation or an unproved reduction in income from inherited assets, and included prepaid licence charges in the particular circumstances. With future prospects and the applicable deductions and multiplier, compensation was fixed at Rs 42,29,534 with interest.

• RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  06/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 755

  The Court held that an applicant for Fitter Instructor possessed the prescribed educational qualification through three training modules already recognised as equivalent to the conventional two-year Fitter certificate. The rules required a certificate in the respective trade from NCVT, without requiring all training to appear in a single certificate. The State could not reject the qualification despite its own prior equivalence circulars. It was directed to take steps for appointment according to law.

• THE STATE OF TELANGANA versus SRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY

  06/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 716

  The Court restored disproportionate-assets proceedings against a police officer. The re-employed Joint Director validly authorised the investigation, and the de facto doctrine also protected his official acts. The informant’s participation in investigation did not justify quashing this earlier prosecution under the authorities applied. Preliminary inquiry was not mandatory in every corruption case where credible information disclosed a cognizable offence. Sanction questions could be examined during trial, and the pre-2018 substantive law governed.

• DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM (DMK) versus SECRETARY GOVERNORS SECRETARIAT AND ORS.

  06/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 704

  The Court permitted Tamil Nadu panchayat elections to proceed outside nine reconstituted districts, while requiring fresh delimitation and subsequent elections in those nine districts within four months. Altered district boundaries made the earlier delimitation insufficient for population-based representation and reservation there. The proceedings furthered the prerequisites of fair elections and were not barred as an election challenge. The main appeals concerning use of the 2011 Census had become infructuous.

• M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

  06/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1013

  The Court held that the Sikkim excise exemption notification did not exempt National Calamity Contingent Duty, education cess or secondary and higher education cess imposed under separate Finance Acts. Incorporation of excise-law exemption machinery supplied a power to exempt, rather than an automatic exemption. Following Modi Rubber and Rita Textiles, the Court declared SRD Nutrients and Bajaj Auto per incuriam for overlooking binding larger-Bench precedents and upheld dismissal of the manufacturers’ claims.

• DHARMENDRA PRASAD & ORS. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ORS.

  06/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 763

  The Court directed recasting of Junior Engineers’ seniority in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam by merit while assigning seniority according to the applicable reservation roster. Fortuitously earlier appointment of lower-ranked candidates could not defeat the regulations requiring appointments in selection-list order. However, the existing merit-based list also failed to implement the mandatory roster. General government-servant seniority rules did not automatically govern the statutory Nigam’s employees.

• DARSHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

  06/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 742

  The Court affirmed the surviving appellants’ convictions for killing an elderly woman on circumstantial evidence. The dispute over unpaid land-lease money, subsequent conduct, extra-judicial confessions, medical findings and recoveries established the chain of circumstances. Although the witness who saw disposal of the bag could not identify the appellants, his account remained relevant to the sequence of events. The servant’s confession was supported by injuries and recovery of the chair described by him.

• MAHIPAL versus RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA & ANR.

  05/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 529

  The Court set aside bail granted to five accused in a murder prosecution because the High Court ignored material evidence and supplied only a perfunctory justification. Appellate review of an unjustified original grant differs from cancellation based on subsequent misconduct. Bail required a reasoned assessment of the prima facie case, gravity, punishment and risks to justice, without a full trial of the evidence. The accused were ordered into custody, with guilt expressly left undecided.

• M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 16

  The Court returned a reference to a Division Bench because the referred question about compulsory duty payment under Rule 96-ZP(3) did not arise on the facts and was not disputed by the assessee. The actual challenge concerned Rule 5’s statutory and constitutional validity. Those questions, and other issues in tagged matters apart from the extraneous referred issue, remained for the Division Bench to decide.

• STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBI/ACB/BANGALORE versus B.A. SRINIVASAN AND ANR.

  05/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 513

  The Court reversed discharge of a retired bank officer prosecuted for alleged conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption in loan transactions. Applying the sanction law governing this prosecution, retirement before cognizance removed the requirement under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 197 CrPC protected acts reasonably connected with official duty, not use of office as a cloak for unlawful gain. The trial court’s refusal of discharge was restored, with the merits expressly left open.

• STATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus SHIV CHARAN BANSAL & ORS.

  05/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1155

  The Court partly reversed discharge orders in a murder-conspiracy case, directing charges and trial against Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh while maintaining relief to Rajbir Singh. At the charge stage, material supporting grave suspicion sufficed without a trial-like assessment. The conspiracy evidence required cumulative consideration, including financial dealings, conduct, calls and weapon recovery. A prompt trial was directed, with pending appeals concerning other accused left for the High Court.

• BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. versus SH. GHANSHYAM CHAND SHARMA & ANR.

  05/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 546

  The Court denied pension to an employee who had resigned after his application for voluntary retirement was refused. Resignation and voluntary retirement had distinct legal consequences, and completion of the qualifying service could not convert one into the other. Applying Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, his past service stood forfeited. The earlier refusal of voluntary retirement had not been challenged before resignation, and the length-of-service dispute was therefore immaterial.

• THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.V. BABULAL LADE & ORS. versus BABULAL LADE & ORS.

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 485

  The Court required the secured bank to satisfy unpaid salaries from auction proceeds because its sale contract expressly allocated employees’ dues to it. Neither the Companies Act priority nor recovery as land-revenue arrears created the claimed paramount charge for employees of this co-operative society. Nevertheless, the sale letter and certificate constituted a contrary contract under Section 13(7) SARFAESI and displaced its default distribution order. Other liabilities, including statutory employee dues, remained with the purchaser.

• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus MANJU NAIK

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 473

  The Court held that invalid pension under the applicable Orissa Pension Rules required the same minimum ten years of qualifying service prescribed for pension generally. Rule 39 could not be read separately from Rule 47, which provided service gratuity for shorter service. The deceased employee had less than ten years, and gratuity and other benefits had already been paid. The Tribunal had also granted invalid pension although the widow had not sought that relief in her application.

• HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED (H.Z.L.) versus AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 113

  The Court held that the State Electricity Commission lacked power under Section 86(1)(f) to refer this open-access consumer dispute to arbitration. Although the company owned a captive generating plant, the dispute concerned wheeling electricity to its own units in their capacity as consumers. That provision governed disputes between licensees and generating companies. Consent did not cure the inherent jurisdictional defect. The award was non est, but the High Court’s merits observations would not obstruct other lawful remedies.

• M/S. SESHASAYEE STEELS P. LTD. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(2), CHENNAI

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 196

  The Court upheld capital-gains taxation in assessment year 2004–05 on reasons based on the later compromise and completed payments. The earlier agreement and power of attorney merely licensed development and did not transfer possession under Section 53A or confer enjoyment as an owner. Under the compromise, encashment of the final cheque extinguished the assessee’s rights and effected a transfer within Section 2(47)(ii) and (vi).

• GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 856

  The Court held that the particular tug charter transferred the exclusive right to use the vessel and was a deemed sale taxable in Karnataka. Retention of crew, maintenance, insurance and indemnity obligations by the owner did not overcome the charterer’s comprehensive control under the contract. The agreement’s execution in Mangalore fixed the taxable situs despite use in territorial waters. Territorial sovereignty and service-tax questions were left open, and the request for remand was rejected.

• HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 828

  The Court rejected the constitutional challenge to Punjab’s special summary eviction law for religious premises. Religious institutions and their tenants could form a distinct class linked to preserving institutional property and public purposes. Existing rent protection did not prevent the legislature adopting a later special regime. Valid subsisting leases, grants and allotments remained protected; mere rent payment did not establish authorised occupation. Notice, hearing, appeal and judicial review safeguarded application of the law.

• P. CHIDAMBARAM versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  04/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 450

  The Court granted regular bail in the INX Media money-laundering case after considering the completed period of custodial interrogation, absence of demonstrated flight or interference risks, age, illness and other circumstances. Gravity of economic offences remained relevant beyond the usual triple test, but did not require automatic refusal. The High Court should not have converted allegations or sealed-cover material into findings of guilt. Trial merits and the position of other accused were expressly left open.

• BHAWNA BAI versus GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS

  03/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 422

  The Court restored murder charges against two accused after the High Court discharged them for want of reasons in the charge-framing order. The alleged last-seen circumstances, conduct and prior quarrel supplied a prima facie basis to proceed. At that stage the court required sufficient grounds or strong suspicion, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. A judge framing charges under Section 228 CrPC need not record detailed reasons or conduct an elaborate evidentiary inquiry.

• JAGJEET SINGH LYALLPURI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus M/S UNITOP APARTMENTS & BUILDERS LTD.

  03/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 433

  The Court restored an arbitral award after rejecting the developer’s complaint that evidence and cross-examination had been denied. Both parties had expressly agreed to rely on affidavits and documents and dispense with cross-examination. The arbitrator had considered the claims, including construction expenditure, and no statutory setting-aside ground was established. Separately, invoking Article 142 in the peculiar circumstances, the Court directed the landowners to pay Rs 45 lakh in full settlement before resuming possession.

• KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD. versus SHRI ANIL V THARTHARE & ORS.

  03/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 539

  The Court upheld the NGT’s directions concerning an expanded residential project undertaken without the prescribed environmental appraisal. Under the notification as applicable, expansion beyond the capacity covered by an existing clearance required the paragraph 7(ii) process even within the Schedule’s upper threshold. A purported amendment without updated application and expert review was insufficient. Because construction was complete, the expert committee was to assess remedial measures and compensatory exaction; the Rs 1 crore deposit direction stood.

• M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

  03/12/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 559

  The Court held that NCLT lacked jurisdiction to review Karnataka’s statutory refusal to extend a mining lease, permitting the High Court to entertain a writ despite an available NCLAT appeal. Insolvency jurisdiction and the resolution professional’s asset-preservation duties did not confer public-law judicial review or create a renewal right through moratorium. By contrast, NCLT and NCLAT could examine fraudulent initiation of insolvency proceedings; that allegation alone did not justify bypassing the statutory appeal.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus LT. COL. SAMEER SINGH

  02/12/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 414

  The Court held that Technical Assessment Reports could not be used as an independent criterion for permanent secondment of officers governed by the DGQA office memorandum of 12 May 2011. That memorandum specified the applicable criteria and expressly superseded earlier instructions, including the 2004 policy relying on TARs. A later letter stressing TARs’ importance did not amend the governing criteria. TARs could inform ACR grading, which the memorandum separately required.

• G H P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

  29/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 422

  The Court held that relied-on audio-video contents of a memory card were documentary electronic evidence, ordinarily requiring a cloned copy for the accused. In this sexual-offence prosecution, it balanced effective defence with the complainant’s privacy by permitting confidential independent forensic examination and safeguarded court inspection instead of unrestricted delivery. The relevance, proof and admissibility of the recording were not decided. The lower courts’ orders were modified and an expeditious trial directed.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus RAMESH BISHNOI

  29/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1097

  The Court upheld restoration of a selected CISF Sub-Inspector’s appointment after rejection based on an earlier criminal case arising while he was a minor. He had disclosed the case and acquittal fully. Applying the juvenile fresh-start principle, the Court found no special circumstances justifying adverse reliance on those allegations in this case. The acquittal and juvenile status could not be treated as disqualifying him from the offered employment.

• FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus PRATAP KUNDU

  29/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1103

  The Court rejected the contractor’s demand for 471% above-schedule rates on casual-labour wages under an FCI handling contract. Unlike other scheduled items, the labour item expressly deferred wages to the pending litigation, ultimately determined by the Supreme Court’s 2010 order. Remand survived only to verify wages under that order, including conditional reimbursement of wages paid by the contractor. The High Court’s further direction to determine contractor profit had no basis and was set aside.

• M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

  29/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1081

  The Court quashed the marketer’s impleadment in prosecution over jelly labelled sugarless after official delay defeated its valuable right to Central Food Laboratory retesting. Where proving misbranding depended on the food’s ingredients, Section 13(2) applied despite absence of an adulteration charge. The authorities had failed to notify the marketer adequately despite its address on the label, and the sample’s shelf life had probably expired. The separate objection to a retailer seeking impleadment was rejected.

• TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED versus M/S RAIN CALCINING LIMITED & OTHERS

  29/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 474

  The Court restored APERC’s orders fixing wheeling and grid-support charges and ending earlier concessional incentives. The State reforms legislation and regulations empowered tariff determination for transmission and distribution, including changes affecting existing arrangements. Joint applications and the expert assessment of integrated-system costs and losses were upheld. The renewable-energy incentives had been reviewable rather than an unequivocal perpetual promise, and promissory estoppel did not compel their continuation.

• THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. versus PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA & ORS.

  28/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1072

  The Court permitted APSC to complete the advertised recruitment of 65 Assistant Engineers under its 2010 rules. The 2019 procedure was prospective and expressly saved pending selections. Applying it only to the interview after a screening test without negative marking would impose inconsistent standards within one process and prejudice candidates. The High Court’s direction to apply the new procedure midway was reversed.

• JAI PRAKASH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

  28/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1056

  The Court declined to disturb the High Court’s acquittal of three accused in a shooting case. Doubts about the witnesses’ presence and narrative, a material inconsistency about a scuffle, an unexplained additional firearm injury and missing physical evidence cumulatively undermined the prosecution. Investigative omissions did not automatically benefit an accused, but their significance depended on the surrounding evidence. The acquittal showed no perversity or glaring infirmity warranting interference.

• M/S DEEP INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.

  28/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 995

  The Court reversed Article 227 interference with an appellate order sustaining an arbitrator’s interim stay of ONGC’s two-year ban. Constitutional supervision survived the Arbitration Act, but required exceptional restraint consistent with limited appeals and minimal intervention. A dispute about arbitral jurisdiction or a possible error in granting injunction was not patent inherent lack of jurisdiction. The High Court had also improperly revisited a rejected Section 16 objection before the award stage.

• R. R. INAMDAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

  28/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 505

  The Court upheld the conclusion that a solitary, non-interchangeable English Lecturer post could not be filled through reservation. A State circular grouping teaching posts could not override the binding single-post rule. It nevertheless protected the appellant from recovery for work performed and directed consideration of an additional or supernumerary post. The senior claimant was to be considered for promotion with notional pay fixation, without salary arrears for the period she had not served in the lecturer post.

• ODISHA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S ANUPAM TRADERS & ANR.

  28/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1030

  The Court set aside unconditional refund of deposits made to secure interim relief against resale of Kendu leaves. Withdrawal of the purchasers’ writ petitions did not require immediate refund while contractual resale losses remained to be assessed. The deposits were protective court-ordered security rather than automatically forfeitable additional contractual deposits. OFDC was to quantify loss after notice and hearing, make a speaking order and adjust or refund accordingly, subject to challenge before the appropriate forum.

• TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

  28/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1011

  The Court upheld reconsideration of Tamil Nadu pay anomalies through a Pay Grievance Redressal Committee rather than finally deciding the proper scales. It modified the High Court’s directions by appointing Justice D. Murugesan as Chair and setting arrangements and representation deadlines. Any eventual reduction was to operate prospectively, without recovery of benefits already enjoyed. Pending decision, affected categories could not migrate to Seventh Pay Commission scales using the disputed higher scales.

• VINOD KUMAR GARG versus STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI)

  27/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1134

  The Court affirmed a public servant’s corruption convictions on proof of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money. Variations about the precise location, prior instalment and wash procedure did not undermine the core evidence and contemporaneous records. The statutory presumption remained unrebutted. The sanctioning authority had considered relevant material, and investigation by inspectors rather than the asserted requisite rank did not vitiate conviction without prejudice. Surrender to serve the remaining sentence was directed.

• HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA

  27/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 331

  The Court struck down Section 87 and the 2019 repeal of the 2015 transitional provision as manifestly arbitrary, preserving BCCI’s approach to the arbitration amendments and rejecting automatic stay merely upon an award challenge. It rejected the separate insolvency-law challenge, declined to include NHAI within corporate insolvency, and refused disputed monetary recovery directions under Article 32. The challenge to additional bank guarantees under the NITI Aayog payout scheme also failed.

• M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED versus NORTHERN COAL FIELD LIMITED

  27/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 999

  Applying Section 11(6A) to a post-2015 invocation, the Court reversed refusal to appoint an arbitrator on limitation grounds. With the arbitration agreement undisputed, limitation was left to the arbitral tribunal under the statutory policy limiting pre-reference review. By consent, Justice A. M. Sapre was appointed sole arbitrator, subject to statutory disclosures. Singrauli was identified as the seat, with flexibility for a convenient hearing venue.

• G H CENTURY RAYON LIMITED versus IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS

  27/11/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1116

  An owner obtained an interim injunction against electricity transmission towers on its land. The District Magistrate subsequently permitted the work subject to compensation, towers were already erected, and 80% of the transmission-line work was complete. The Supreme Court lifted the injunction on an additional ad hoc payment of Rs. 20 lakh, leaving substantive disputes and final compensation open.

• VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANA versus VEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR

  27/11/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1125

  A purchaser sued for injunction after the seller refused performance, expressly mentioning an intended specific-performance suit but obtaining no leave to omit that relief. The Supreme Court upheld the bar against the later suit because the causes of action were identical and specific performance was already available. The earlier plaint had been admitted in evidence without objection, and no prejudice arose from the absence of a specific trial issue. Refund relief was granted to the purchasers in both connected appeals.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus P. S. GILL

  27/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 405

  The Union challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision quashing proceedings for convening a general court martial against a retired Army officer. The Supreme Court held that the challenge to convening the court martial fell within the Tribunal’s original jurisdiction over service matters, although its appellate jurisdiction over court martial orders did not apply. It also declined to disturb the Tribunal’s finding that the material disclosed no prima facie case.

• PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC & ANR.C (INDIA) LTD. versus HSCC (INDIA) LTD

  26/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 275

  Consultants sought independent arbitrators despite appointments made by the respondent’s Chairman and Managing Director under an exclusive contractual power. The Supreme Court held that an interested person cannot appoint a sole arbitrator, even where that person is not named to arbitrate personally. The invalid appointments did not prevent exercise of the Court’s appointment jurisdiction. With the consortium’s lead member based in New York, the proceedings qualified as international commercial arbitration.

• NASIMA NAQI versus TODI TEA COMPANY LTD. AND ORS

  26/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1048

  The widow of a tenant challenged eviction from a non-residential shop, claiming continuing statutory protection and preference for a fresh tenancy. The Supreme Court upheld the interpretation that the five-year exception for spouses concerned residential premises and that the fresh-tenancy preference omitted spouses. Although it regarded that omission as discriminatory and deserving legislative correction, it declined to insert the missing class judicially. Eviction was maintained with time to vacate.

• KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL versus B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC.

  26/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 305

  The Karnataka Pollution Control Board challenged quashing of water-pollution complaints against municipal commissioners and chief officers. The Supreme Court held that municipal councils are separate corporate bodies rather than government departments. Their offences are governed by the Act’s company-liability provision, whose definition includes any body corporate, with cognizance under section 49. Their exclusion from the government-department provision therefore afforded no immunity from prosecution.

• SHIV SENA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  26/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 206

  In a challenge to the formation of the Maharashtra Government, the Supreme Court ordered an early floor test as interim relief. A month had elapsed since election results without elected members taking oath. To reduce uncertainty and the possibility of horse trading, the Court required the confidence question to be resolved in the Assembly on 27 November 2019. Maintainability, the extent of judicial review and the validity of the Governor’s satisfaction were reserved for later adjudication.

• V. RAJARAM versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB

  26/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 977

  A Deputy Superintendent of Police challenged the reversal of his acquittal for intentionally disobeying law to protect offenders and intentionally failing to apprehend them during the Dinakaran office attack. The Supreme Court found that he acted under the officer commanding security, helped disperse agitators and later arrested accused persons. The prosecution had not established the required intentional misconduct. The trial court’s acquittal was a plausible view which the High Court should not have displaced.

• GURJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

  26/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 232

  The Supreme Court upheld a husband’s conviction for cruelty involving unlawful demands but set aside his conviction for abetment of suicide. Cruelty and suicide within seven years of marriage did not automatically establish abetment. The evidence failed to connect the husband’s conduct causally and proximately to the suicide, and the dowry-death charge did not allege that his harassment drove the deceased to suicide.

• JITENDRA SINGH versus MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & ORS.

  25/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 220

  The National Green Tribunal summarily dismissed objections to allotment of village ponds for industrial development because a larger replacement waterbody was proposed. The Supreme Court held that replacement elsewhere could not justify destruction of existing commons: ecological functions, groundwater recharge and community access could not be reduced to surface-area comparisons. It quashed the village waterbody allotments and ordered restoration and protection.

• KAPILABEN & ORS. versus ASHOK KUMAR JAYANTILAL SHETH THROUGH POA GOPALBHAI MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.

  25/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 247

  Subsequent purchasers sought specific performance against landowners through agreements with the original vendees. The Supreme Court found no valid assignment with the owners’ consent: the arrangements involved intertwined development obligations and were contingent on performance of the original sale agreement. Those original rights had not fructified and were abandoned. Specific performance was refused, but refund and damages against the original vendees were ordered.

• W. N. ALLAL SUNDARAM versus THE COMMISSIONER H.R. & C.E. ADMN. DEPARTMENT & ORS.

  22/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 194

  A claimant asserted that property settled for construction and maintenance of a choultry was a private family trust outside statutory religious-endowment control. The Supreme Court held that the settlement dedicated the property to public use, particularly accommodating temple pilgrims during religious festivals, denied proprietary rights to the manager and prohibited encumbrance. It therefore constituted a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu statute.

• RADHA BAI versus RAM NARAYAN & ORS.

  22/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 119

  A granddaughter sought partition and possession through her father, who had died before both his father and grandfather. The Supreme Court upheld rejection of the claim on the succession history before it. The property had devolved on the great-grandfather’s two surviving sons and, upon their partition, become the grandfather’s exclusive share, which he sold during his lifetime. The claimant could assert no higher entitlement than her father, and neither partition nor the registered sale had been challenged.

• NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus HARLEEN KAUR & ORS.

  22/11/2019 · [2019] 18 S.C.R. 896

  The municipal corporation challenged relief concerning contractual entomologists appointed after advertisement and interview and serving since 1997–98 against sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court declined interference concerning regularization but modified the commencement of actual monetary benefits to the date of the Tribunal’s judgment, preserving notional pay fixation and continuity of service.

• UNION OF INDIA THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI versus ANKIT ASHOK JALAN

  22/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 169

  The Union challenged quashing of two COFEPOSA detention orders against persons already in judicial custody. The Supreme Court found that the authority had considered their custody, likely release and propensity to resume prejudicial activities on the material before it. Non-consideration of a co-accused’s retraction did not invalidate these orders because neither sponsoring nor detaining authority knew of it when detention was ordered. The orders were restored.

• GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

  22/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 139

  A company challenged the High Court’s refusal to entertain a writ against buy-back tax liability, arguing that no statutory appeal existed. The Supreme Court held that the broad appeal provision covering denial of liability to assessment included determinations under section 115QA. Earlier notice and interim protection had not disposed of the alternative-remedy objection. The statutory appeal was to proceed, with actual tax liability expressly left undecided.

• N. MOHAN versus R. MADHU

  21/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 156

  After unsuccessfully pursuing proceedings to set aside an ex parte money decree, the defendant filed a delayed first appeal. The Supreme Court held that rejection of the earlier remedy did not extinguish the statutory appeal, though condonation depended on bona fides and the particular facts. Considering the defendant’s Rs. 25 lakh deposit, it granted conditional condonation of the 546-day delay upon a further Rs. 20 lakh deposit, leaving the merits open.

• AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR. ITS COMMISSIONER ETC. versus JAYANT S/O SARVOTTAMRAO KHARWADKAR ETC. & ORS.

  21/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 986

  A municipal employee was reverted from Town Planner to Sectional Engineer without notice or hearing. The Supreme Court quashed the reversion for breach of natural justice and left the corporation free to proceed according to law. It declined to adjudicate the broader service merits and clarified that the High Court’s reasons would not bind any fresh proceedings. A prior unreasoned refusal of special leave did not foreclose review in the High Court.

• UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY & ORS. versus UDAI BHAN SINGH

  21/11/2019 · [2019] 17 S.C.R. 527

  The Union challenged reinstatement of a postal employee dismissed for misconduct connected with fraudulent commission payments. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had accepted a vague non-supply-of-documents plea without identifying relevance or prejudice. Delay after remand caused no prejudice on these facts because evidence had already been recorded, no fresh inquiry was required, and the employee had been reinstated meanwhile. Dismissal was restored with protection against recovery of salary for work actually performed.

• REKHA MURARKA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

  20/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 106

  A victim sought permission for her counsel to participate independently in examination, cross-examination and arguments in a Sessions trial. The Supreme Court held that victim’s counsel may assist the prosecution generally, not only a Special Public Prosecutor, but must preserve the Public Prosecutor’s primary role. Suggestions should ordinarily be routed through the prosecutor and, if important matters remain unaddressed, through the judge. Independent parallel prosecution was not permitted.

• STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED

  20/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 128

  The State sought to withdraw a time-bound fly-ash tax rebate from industrial units which had already commenced production under the incentive notification. The Supreme Court held that the rescinding notification operated prospectively and could not truncate their accrued eligibility. The asserted administrative difficulties and future revenue loss did not establish overwhelming public interest against those units. Actual refunds nevertheless required verification, including proof that the tax burden had not been passed to consumers.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus KILLU @ KAILASH AND ORS.

  19/11/2019 · [2019] 14 S.C.R. 95

  Three accused were acquitted of murder by the High Court because they had not struck blows, although they accompanied two axe-wielding assailants into the victim’s house at midnight while themselves armed. The Supreme Court held that the clear eyewitness evidence and coordinated armed entry established membership of an unlawful assembly sharing the murderous common object. Absence of an individual blow did not defeat vicarious liability, and their trial convictions were restored.

• BAIDYANATH YADAV versus ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

  19/11/2019 · [2019] 15 S.C.R. 427

  An unsuccessful officer challenged selection of non-State Civil Service officers to the IAS, obtaining a High Court direction for his individual recommendation and assessment. The Supreme Court found no bias, mala fides, arbitrariness or serious breach in the committees’ selection. Serial placement in preliminary lists was irrelevant, and a minister’s approval power did not authorise adding an independent recommendation. The Court restored the existing selection by setting aside the High Court judgment.