Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2020

192 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• M/S. GALAXY TRANSPORT AGENCIES, CONTRACTORS, TRADERS, TRANSPORTS AND SUPPLIERS versus M/S. NEW J.K. ROADWAYS, FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS & ORS.

  18/12/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1090

  The Court restored a transport contract after holding that the Division Bench improperly substituted its interpretation of tender eligibility and its appraisal of experience for those of the tendering authority and expert committee. The authority reasonably understood the requirement of vehicles of both HMV/LMV types as requiring both kinds. Absent the recognised grounds for judicial review, the expert assessment of qualifying experience could not be displaced by a fresh judicial evaluation.

• THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus KESHAO VISHWANATH SONONE & ANR.

  18/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 597

  The Court reversed the declaration that the Gowari community was entitled to Scheduled Tribe status as Gond Gowari in Maharashtra. Only Parliament may alter the notified list; the High Court could not use evidence to substitute an unlisted community for a listed tribe. Its finding that Gond Gowari had become extinct before 1911 was also unsupported. Initial admissions and employment secured through certificates issued following the High Court judgment were protected within a defined period, without further Scheduled Tribe benefits.

• SURESH SHAH versus HIPAD TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

  18/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 821

  Allowing a petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator under a sub-lease, the Court held that tenancy disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable where the parties agreed to arbitration. Disputes governed by special rent legislation conferring statutory protection and exclusive jurisdiction on a specified forum remain non-arbitrable. Because the petitioner was a Kenyan national habitually resident there, the arbitration was international commercial and appointment lay with the Supreme Court despite the contractual reference to the Delhi High Court.

• PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA versus DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @ DHIRAJ SAHU & ANR.

  18/12/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 480

  An MLA’s vote in a Rajya Sabha election at 9:15 a.m. remained valid despite his conviction and two-year sentence at 2:30 p.m. that day. Disqualification under section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act begins when the conviction occurs and does not retrospectively invalidate an earlier vote by relating back to midnight. The defeated candidate’s appeal failed; the returned candidate succeeded in setting aside the contrary High Court findings.

• IN RE: PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID 19 PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. versus .

  18/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 762

  In continuing suo motu proceedings concerning COVID-19 treatment and hospital deaths, the Court directed hospital fire-safety supervision, monthly audits and action concerning missing or expired fire clearances. It reaffirmed that Article 21 includes affordable treatment and required strict implementation of pandemic safeguards, transparency in testing and reporting, hospital-bed directions and election-related precautions. Further compliance affidavits were directed within four weeks.

• SAURAV YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  18/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 281

  In recruitment of constables in Uttar Pradesh, otherwise eligible OBC women who scored above the last selected open-category woman could not be excluded from open-category horizontal reservation merely because they belonged to a vertically reserved category. The Court directed offers of employment to qualifying OBC women, protected existing appointees and rejected claims of candidates below the relevant merit threshold.

• RAHNA JALAL versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

  17/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 621

  The Court granted anticipatory bail to a mother-in-law accused in an FIR involving triple talaq and matrimonial cruelty. The offence of pronouncing talaq under the 2019 Act can be committed by the Muslim husband, not his mother. Section 7(c) does not exclude anticipatory bail, but the married Muslim complainant must be heard before it is granted. The remaining cruelty allegations against the appellant were vague and general.

• REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR.V. DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR. versus DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR

  17/12/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 859

  The Court rejected a teacher’s claim to backdate his Career Advancement Scheme promotion to a period when he worked in an affiliated college before joining Karnataka University. Under the University’s governing statute, past service could count towards promotion eligibility, but the effective promotion date could not precede entry into University service. Reading the scheme with its preamble, colleges meant constituent colleges, and the wider definition in the parent Act did not enlarge the scheme.

• AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LTD. versus MMTC LTD.

  17/12/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 510

  The Court restored a majority arbitral award for damages arising from MMTC’s failure to lift contracted coal. Applying the pre-2015 review standard, it held that the tribunal’s findings on breach, availability of coal and market-price loss were possible views supported by oral evidence and the correspondence as a whole. The Division Bench improperly isolated three emails and treated contextual inferences as unsupported. Evidence-law principles did not require the correspondence to be read without its commercial setting.

• M/S. SS GROUP PVT. LTD. versus AADITIYA J. GARG & ANR.

  17/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 779

  The Court directed the National Consumer Commission to receive a builder’s written statements filed four days beyond the ordinary forty-five-day limit. The response period expired while the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation-extension order of 23 March 2020 remained operative, so the filing received its benefit. The Court retained the ordinary statutory limit while applying the exceptional extension to these proceedings.

• DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA versus SMT. ANITA AGARWAL & ORS. ETC.

  17/12/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 294

  The Court set aside anticipatory bail granted to four in-laws in a case concerning an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The High Court had misread specific allegations of dowry demands and assaults as general and relied on unsupported inferences from the accused’s means. Serious investigative deficiencies, including failure to probe the murder allegation and unexplored financial and telephone evidence, justified further investigation by the CBI despite a filed chargesheet. All observations on guilt remained prima facie.

• SEELAN @ JEYASEELAN versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  16/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1235

  The Court dismissed the accused’s special leave petition against concurrent findings of rape of a six-year-old child, supported by the child’s testimony and her mother’s eyewitness account. It agreed with the rejection of the claimed physical impossibility arising from the accused having only one hand. Because the State had not appealed and the incident was twenty years old, the Court expressly refrained from examining section 376(2) and reduction of its minimum punishment.

• SANJAI TIWARI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  16/12/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 966

  The Court set aside an order expediting a corruption trial because the section 482 application had been brought by an unrelated third party without locus. The applicant’s description as an advocate and social activist did not connect him to the prosecution, and the proceeding did not appear bona fide. The Court preserved the trial court’s ability to expedite the matter, subject to orders in pending High Court proceedings, and left the trial unaffected.

• DR. AKB SADBHAVANA MISSION SCHOOL OF HOMOEO PHARMACY versus THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AYUSH & ORS.

  15/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1074

  The Court modified directions against homeopathic practitioners because the High Court had read the 2020 AYUSH advisory too narrowly as permitting only immunity boosters. The advisory and guidelines also contemplated symptom management and adjunctive interventions under their conditions. The prohibition on claiming or advertising a COVID-19 cure remained. The decision concerned the scope of those historical directions and guidelines, rather than authorising unrestricted treatment.

• SAMIR AGRAWAL versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

  15/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1044

  The Court rejected the NCLAT’s narrow view that only a personally injured informant could approach the Competition Commission or appeal. Competition proceedings serve public interests and operate in rem; any person may supply information and challenge an adverse closure order. On the merits of the information concerning Ola and Uber, however, the Court declined to disturb concurrent findings that the alleged driver cartelisation was not made out.

• SMT. S. VANITHA versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT & ORS.

  15/12/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1057

  Setting aside a daughter-in-law’s summary eviction, the Court held that the Senior Citizens Act must be harmonised with a woman’s shared-household protections under the Domestic Violence Act. Senior-citizen relief cannot automatically nullify competing residence claims. The appellant’s entitlement was left for the appropriate forum; she received one year’s protection against forcible dispossession and alienation, restoration of electricity and liberty to pursue domestic-violence remedies.

• ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD. versus SHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LTD.

  15/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 783

  The Court upheld transfer of a winding-up proceeding to the NCLT for treatment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code even after admission and appointment of a liquidator. The transfer power is not confined to a particular procedural stage, but its exercise depends on whether winding up has become irreversible. Mere custody of offices, factory premises and records did not reach that point in this case.

• VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS versus DURGA TRADING CORPORATION

  14/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 1001

  Answering a reference on arbitrability, the Court held that landlord–tenant disputes under the Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable, while special rent-control disputes reserved to exclusive statutory forums are not. It formulated four overlapping tests of non-arbitrability and confined referral-stage judicial review under sections 8 and 11 to a limited prima facie inquiry, with arbitral tribunals ordinarily deciding jurisdiction first. The connected matters were disposed of with tribunal determination and statutory post-award remedies preserved.

• ROHTAS & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

  10/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 983

  The Court maintained the three appellants’ convictions for attempted murder but set aside their rioting convictions after the number of proved participants fell below five. Failure of the unlawful-assembly charge did not prevent an individual substantive conviction or reliance on established common intention where no prejudice resulted. The injured victim’s and his brother’s evidence was accepted, and the brutality and permanent disability caused warranted refusal to reduce the five-year sentence.

• G H APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. versus JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS.

  10/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 732

  The Court upheld the University Syndicate’s academic conditions for affiliation of additional engineering courses. Its power to prescribe norms flowed directly from the University Act and did not disappear because University Statutes had yet to be issued. AICTE approval did not prevent the University from prescribing enhanced standards, provided it did not dilute central standards. The operative modified Syndicate resolution and consequential action concerning the respondent college were upheld.

• THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. versus SHAJI POULOSE & ORS.

  09/12/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 851

  The Court withdrew to itself writ petitions challenging ICAI’s tax-audit assignment limits and related disciplinary proceedings pending in three High Courts. Conflicting High Court decisions and the question’s importance to chartered accountants and taxpayers warranted an authoritative determination. Existing interim orders were continued pending further orders; the validity of the guidelines was not decided in these transfer proceedings.

• G H MADHAVI versus CHAGAN & ORS.

  09/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1208

  The Court restored the secondary-school seniority position favouring Madhavi and rejected Chagan’s claim to Category C seniority from his initial appointment. Secondary-school seniority follows the qualification-based categories in Schedule F, unlike the rule for primary teachers. Chagan’s later acquisition of qualifications did not place him ahead of teachers already in Category C. Madhavi’s qualified temporary appointment was lawful, and the High Court’s contrary review judgment was set aside.

• SARITHA S. NAIR versus HIBI EDEN

  09/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 635

  The Court dismissed the challenge to rejection of an election petition while correcting the High Court’s treatment of defects in verification and the prayer as incurable. Those defects called for an opportunity to correct them. Nevertheless, suspension of execution of imprisonment, without a stay of conviction, left the petitioner disqualified under Section 8(3); rejection of her nomination was valid and a trial of the election petition would serve no purpose.

• KUSH KALRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  09/12/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1133

  In a petition challenging posters outside homes of COVID-positive persons and disclosure of their names, the Court noted that the Union’s home-isolation guidelines contained no poster requirement. It observed that States and Union Territories were not then required to affix such posters and could do so only upon a direction from the competent Disaster Management Act authority. In view of that position, the broader constitutional arguments were not adjudicated.

• TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN versus THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 593 OF 2018 IN

  09/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1230

  The Court allowed review, recalled its earlier judgment and dismissed the Forest Officer’s appeal against quashing of wildlife proceedings. On the veterinary identification available in this case, the seized Indian Flap Shell Turtle was not the turtle specified in the cited entry of Schedule I. The animal had already been released and was unavailable for further examination.

• THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD.& ANR.

  08/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 821

  The Court upheld rejection of two technical bids for an Indore flyover. UPSBC had withheld its indictment concerning a collapsed bridge, contrary to the tender documents read together. The authority’s construction of the similar-work requirement against Rachana was also permissible. The State was directed to issue the letter of intent to Rajkamal at UPSBC’s financial bid, which Rajkamal had agreed to match.

• ANITA SHARMA & ORS. versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

  08/12/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1118

  The Court restored a motor-accident award after finding that the High Court had wrongly rejected an independent eyewitness’s substantially unchallenged evidence and relied on a hearsay FIR. Accident claims require proof on a preponderance of probabilities. Compensation was enhanced by adding 40% to the deceased’s annual income for future prospects, with recalculation by the Tribunal and interest at the rate already awarded.

• THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT versus P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

  08/12/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 86

  The Court rejected challenges to the Chennai–Salem highway declarations and preliminary acquisition notifications, while preserving restoration of prematurely changed mutation entries. The Union could declare a new highway over greenfield land. Environmental and forest clearances were unnecessary before Sections 2(2) and 3A notifications, but had to precede the Section 3D acquisition declaration. Using Article 142, the Court excluded the clearance process from the statutory acquisition timeline; validity of the clearances themselves remained open.

• DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

  08/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 845

  The Court upheld a father’s 1963 registered gift of agricultural land to his adult son and rejected the State’s claim to surplus land. Acceptance could be inferred from possession, cultivation, mutation records and the parties’ statements. The transfer was protected by Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The appellant’s separate limitation objection failed because an earlier reopening notice had been issued within time.

• AMISH DEVGAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  07/12/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 198

  The Court refused to quash criminal investigations arising from a television anchor’s remarks about Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. Content, context, intent and impact required factual investigation; guilt and the effect of the apology were not decided. All same-telecast FIRs were consolidated at Dargah, Ajmer, treating later complaints as police statements. Protection from arrest continued during investigation subject to cooperation, and threat assessments were directed.

• TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO) versus ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO (S). 1270/2020 IN

  07/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 987

  The Court rejected challenges to the One-Man Committee’s concluding allocation of power-utility personnel between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The earlier consent-based judicial mandate made the allocation binding, with clarification proceedings providing no appeal on the merits. Reciprocity, combined application of the modalities and consequential retirement and hardship adjustments were upheld. Salary and allowance claims remained available before appropriate forums, while the allocation itself could not be reopened.

• INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS versus THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER

  03/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 966

  The Court rejected promoted diploma-holder Assistant Engineers’ claim to the same 9/16-year promotional scales as colleagues directly recruited to that post. Their entitlement fell under the general stagnation-relief circular, whose conditions they did not satisfy, rather than the special circular for direct recruits and specified deemed direct recruits. Earlier favourable High Court rulings did not override binding Supreme Court precedent, and a new 23-year claim could not be introduced in written submissions.

• CHAMAN LAL versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  03/12/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1000

  The Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and convictions for rape and criminal intimidation. Medical evidence established that this victim, whose IQ was 62, could not understand the nature and consequences of the sexual act; ability to perform household tasks did not displace that evidence. DNA established the accused’s paternity, while his defence was total denial. The Court refused a further reduction of the sentence.

• SUMEDH SINGH SAINI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  03/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 812

  The Court granted anticipatory bail to a retired Punjab DGP for the murder offence added to a case concerning an alleged 1991 custodial killing. The approximately 29-year delay, earlier bail for the other offences and subsequent addition of murder on approvers’ statements supported relief on these facts. The legality of the fresh FIR and allegations of mala fides remained for the separate pending quashing proceedings.

• JAYANT ETC. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  03/12/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 665

  The Court sustained investigation of illegal-mining allegations and the separate IPC proceedings, but quashed the mining-law proceedings for offences already compounded. The MMDR Act’s authorised-complaint requirement restricts cognisance, not a Magistrate’s direction to register and investigate a case. Compounding under that Act bars further proceedings for the compounded mining offences, while leaving distinct IPC offences unaffected. The State’s challenge was dismissed.

• PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS

  03/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 198

  The Court declined to disturb 22 longstanding Sub-Inspector appointments made after a State concession in earlier litigation and rejected other candidates’ demand for similar appointments. It corrected the High Court: the earlier order recorded a concession and was not an exercise of Article 142. The appointments remained irregular and contrary to the recruitment scheme, but their preservation on the particular equities did not create a right to negative equality.

• SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  03/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 151

  The Court upheld inclusion of actionable claims within goods under the CGST Act and rejected the challenge to taxing lottery, betting and gambling while excluding other actionable claims. Lottery’s character as an actionable claim was binding precedent, and prize money could not be deducted contrary to the valuation scheme. The Article 32 petition was maintainable on its equality challenge but failed on the merits, with liberty to separately challenge the later uniform-rate notifications.

• NIMAY SAH versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

  02/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 566

  The Court acquitted the deceased woman’s brother-in-law of cruelty after finding that the evidence against him consisted of vague collective allegations without specific instances of dowry harassment. Most family witnesses did not name him individually, the deceased’s letters did not mention such harassment, and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. The ingredients of Section 498A had not been proved against this appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

• SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

  02/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 848

  The Court restored the husband’s and parents-in-law’s acquittal of dowry death. The prosecution had not established an unnatural death, and the alleged demand and payment were undermined by irreconcilable contradictions. The High Court had overlooked medical and defence evidence and drawn unwarranted inferences from the body’s presence in a car. Neither a complete circumstantial case nor the foundation for the dowry-death presumption was established.

• PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI versus BALJIT SINGH & ORS.

  02/12/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 770

  To protect Article 21 rights, the Court directed comprehensive audio-video CCTV coverage of police stations and offices of central agencies exercising arrest and interrogation powers. It prescribed State, district and central oversight, SHO responsibility, funding and maintenance, footage preservation and public notice of complaint rights. Detailed compliance affidavits and firm implementation timelines were required within six weeks; the matter remained pending for monitoring.

• S. D. CONTAINERS INDORE versus M/S. MOLD TEK PACKAGING LTD.

  01/12/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1104

  The Court held that a design-infringement suit must be transferred to the High Court when the defendant invokes a cancellation ground available under Section 19 of the Designs Act. The Commercial Courts Act did not displace that requirement for a High Court without ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The proper transferee was the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, where the cause of action arose, rather than Calcutta.

• THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. versus BRAHMPUTRA METALLICS LTD., RANCHI AND ANR.

  01/12/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 45

  The Court held that Jharkhand’s unexplained delay in implementing its promised captive-power electricity-duty concession, followed by a prospective-only notification, arbitrarily frustrated legitimate expectations. It sustained the industrial unit’s entitlement to a 50% rebate for 2012–13 and 2013–14, with adjustment of excess duty, but excluded 2011–12 because the policy made eligibility commence in the financial year after production began.

• GAJENDRA SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

  27/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 835

  The Court disposed of a housing borrower’s challenge to moratorium-period interest after he expressed satisfaction with the government’s ex gratia scheme covering the difference between compound and simple interest for eligible loan accounts. It directed implementation of the 23 October 2020 decision so that intended beneficiaries received relief. Broader questions raised by other borrowers and sectors were left for their separate petitions.

• INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE LIMITED versus NEPTUNE OVERSEAS LIMITED & ORS.

  27/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 129

  The Court sustained the need for a fresh regulatory adjudication because the respondents had inadequate time and supporting documents to answer serious allegations. It rejected a requirement for fresh notices: the 2011 notice was to cover both the company and its managing director. SEBI was directed to supply outstanding documents, receive replies and conduct a day-to-day hearing. Consequential proceedings were held in abeyance pending that decision, without requiring them to restart automatically.

• ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  27/11/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 896

  The Court gave reasons for granting interim bail to three accused in an abetment-of-suicide case arising from alleged unpaid commercial dues. The High Court should have assessed whether the FIR prima facie disclosed the offence instead of mechanically relegating them to regular bail. The allegations did not prima facie establish abetment, and flight or evidence-tampering risks were absent. The quashing petition and other substantive issues remained for the High Court.

• MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  27/11/2020 · [2020] 2 S.C.R. 246

  In challenges to the 2020 Tribunal Rules, the Court directed changes safeguarding judicial independence in selection, tenure, eligibility and disciplinary control. It ordered a National Tribunals Commission, with an interim tribunals wing in the Finance Ministry, and prescribed appointment deadlines and housing relief. The Rules were prospective from 12 February 2020; specified completed appointments and selections were protected.

• MANOHAR LAL JAT & ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC.

  26/11/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 948

  The Court upheld the seniority of departmental recruits over open-market direct recruits to Rajasthan’s newly created Tax Assistant cadre. Under amended Rule 27, appointment dates governed inter-source seniority. The protection for an earlier selection applied to successive selections from the same source. The direct recruits’ earlier advertisement did not give them precedence over departmental recruits appointed earlier in this first composite recruitment.

• NOY VALLESINA ENGINEERING SPA, (NOW KNOWN AS NOY AMBIENTE S.P.A.) versus JINDAL DRUGS LIMITED & ORS.

  26/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1019

  The Court held that the London-seated ICC arbitration excluded Part I of the Arbitration Act, despite the contract’s choice of Indian substantive law and its pre-BALCO date. It set aside the judgment permitting a Section 34 challenge. It also distinguished the impermissible appeal against enforcement from the award-holder’s maintainable appeal against partial refusal of enforcement, leaving substantive enforcement objections and limitation open in appropriate proceedings.

• SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

  26/11/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 786

  The Court declined to quash a vehicle purchaser’s FIR alleging deception concerning emission-control defeat devices. Pending appeals against the NGT’s environmental compensation order and the interim protection in those appeals did not bar investigation of the purchaser’s distinct allegations. Disputed purchase details and the alleged representations required investigation; delay alone did not justify quashing.

• DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND ORS. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY

  25/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1191

  The Court restored an RPF Sub-Inspector’s compulsory retirement for proved neglect of duty concerning railway-property thefts. The High Court had exceeded supervisory review by reappraising evidence and substituting a lesser penalty without justification. The decision rested on the departmental record, leaving the separate corruption conviction’s pending appeal unaffected. Gratuity, if due, was directed to be released with statutory interest.

• TEJ BAHADUR versus SHRI NARENDRA MODI

  24/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 554

  The Court upheld rejection of Tej Bahadur’s election petition for want of standing. Dismissed from government service within five years, he had failed to furnish the mandatory Election Commission certificate accompanying a valid nomination. He could therefore neither claim candidate status nor rely on elector status in the Varanasi constituency. His own pleadings disclosed no right to maintain the challenge.

• CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND VICE CHAIRMAN GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD versus ASIATIC STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD AND ORS.

  24/11/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 375

  The Court sustained interest relief against the Gujarat Maritime Board for arbitrarily withholding a shipbreaking-plot allottee’s refund while refunding similarly placed allottees after litigation. It corrected the commencement date: interest on the principal consideration ran from 22 March 1995, when it was paid, rather than the earlier earnest-money date. The contractual setting did not excuse the public body’s discriminatory inaction.

• B. K. RAVICHANDRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  24/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 974

  The Court directed the Union to return lands retained for defence purposes long after the statutory requisition ended. Ownership and the absence of valid acquisition had attained finality; the use of adjoining land for defence did not authorize indefinite occupation. Possession had to be restored within three months, independently of the owners’ right to seek fresh compensation through time-bound arbitration.

• RUSODAY SECURITIES LTD. versus NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.

  20/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 218

  The Court upheld Rusoday’s expulsion from NSE and the validity of operational measures permitting withdrawal of trading facilities and immediate closing out for exposure-limit defaults. Membership obligations continued despite trading suspension. On withheld securities, the Court recognized a duty of prudent dealing without imposing automatic registration or liability for lost benefits on these facts, and directed final recovery, return of remaining securities and payment of surplus with interest.

• VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIYAN versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE

  20/11/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 942

  The Court upheld cancellation of default bail because a combined NDPS complaint covering both connected recoveries and these accused had already been filed in the competent Omerga court within 180 days. That filing had not been communicated to the Hyderabad court when it granted bail. Fresh regular-bail applications remained available for independent, expeditious consideration; the appellant released under the cancelled order had to surrender.

• M/S KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PVT. LTD. versus M/S AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

  19/11/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 800

  The Court ordered transfer of pending winding-up proceedings from the Allahabad High Court to NCLT on a financial creditor’s application. A creditor was a party for purposes of the fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c), even though not the original petitioning creditor. The service-stage limits governing automatic transfers under Rules 5 and 6 did not bar this party-initiated transfer. NCLT was to consider the matter with the creditor’s Section 7 application.

• JAYANTILAL VERMA versus STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

  19/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 411

  The Court upheld the husband’s murder conviction on the combined circumstances of his wife’s strangulation inside the family home, consistent material testimony and absence of a plausible explanation. Hostile witnesses and a limited omission in the supporting witness’s earlier account did not defeat the remaining evidence. Separately, the State was directed to examine eligibility for release under applicable norms upon completion of fourteen years’ actual imprisonment.

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF versus UDAYANT MALHOUTRA

  18/11/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 327

  The Court affirmed, on the particular facts, the Tribunal’s setting aside of SEBI’s ex parte escrow-deposit order because urgency was not established after a longstanding investigation. It expressly denied precedential effect to the Tribunal’s restrictive interpretation of SEBI’s statutory powers. Any SEBI order had to conform to Section 11(4); the Court did not endorse a general prohibition on interim impounding before final adjudication.

• RAM SHARAN MAURYA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

  18/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 466

  In the Uttar Pradesh ATRE-2019 recruitment dispute, the Court upheld the 65% general-category and 60% reserved-category qualifying thresholds, including their declaration the day after the examination. It also upheld B.Ed. candidates’ participation under the NCTE notification then governing the selection. Shiksha Mitras had to qualify before receiving experience weightage; they could not demand the earlier examination’s thresholds. The State could complete recruitment on the declared results.

• M/S. FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD AND ORS. ETC. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ETC.

  17/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 956

  The Court rejected the challenge to the CBI investigation based on absence of prior State consent in a coal-diversion prosecution. Uttar Pradesh’s general consent covered the private accused; the two State officials were identified during investigation, later received specific consent, and pleaded no prejudice or miscarriage of justice. The case was remitted to the High Court to decide three other quashing grounds which it had left unanswered.

• KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS. versus SURENDRA DEO GAUR & ORS.

  16/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1030

  The Court upheld dismissal of a second appeal without formulation of a substantial question of law because none arose. The suit was for a possessory injunction and identification of the disputed land, within civil jurisdiction; it was not a revenue-estate boundary dispute excluding that jurisdiction. The proposed additional revenue documents were irrelevant to the appellant’s pleaded claim and did not warrant interference.

• UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

  16/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1175

  The Court quashed FCI’s five-year blacklisting of a recruitment agency because its show-cause notice neither proposed blacklisting nor clearly conveyed that intention. General reference to contractual remedies and tender clauses did not supply meaningful notice of that severe consequence. The appeal concerned blacklisting alone; contract termination was not challenged, and the Court declined to remit the blacklisting issue for fresh consideration.

• RATTAN SINGH & ORS. versus NIRMAL GILL & ORS. ETC.

  16/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 422

  The Court restored the first appellate decrees in disputes over a registered power of attorney and resulting land sales. The plaintiff failed to establish fraud or forgery on the evidence; the High Court had displaced a supported factual view on conjecture in second appeal. The claimed later discovery could not postpone limitation without proof of fraud. The first appellate decree’s limited recognition of the plaintiff’s nine-marla interest was preserved by restoration.

• NTPC LTD. (SIMHADRI PROJECT) versus RAJIV CHAKRABORTY

  16/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1090

  The Court declined to require NTPC’s disputed claim to be moved from “other creditor claims” to “operational creditors” in the information memorandum while arbitration remained pending. Recording it under claims awaiting adjudication neither decided nor extinguished it. The resolution applicant and creditors’ committee were to account for the recorded claim, with remedies concerning its eventual treatment in the final resolution plan left open.

• VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  06/11/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 607

  The Court set aside an indefinite blacklisting of a veterinary-drug manufacturer. The manufacturer had not supplied under the tender invoked against it, the notice did not disclose contemplated blacklisting, and its labelling-error explanation was not considered. The High Court wrongly dismissed the challenge solely for delay despite continued representations, continuing commercial consequences and absence of affected third-party rights. No remand was ordered after the long lapse of time.

• HITESH VERMA versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

  05/11/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 593

  The Court quashed only the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act charge in this property-dispute prosecution. On the allegations before it, the caste-based intent and public-view requirements of Section 3(1)(r) were not made out. The complainant’s caste alone did not establish that offence. Other criminal allegations remained for trial by the competent court along with the connected cross-case.

• C. BRIGHT versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

  05/11/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 997

  The Court held that the thirty-day period, extendable to an aggregate sixty days, for a Magistrate’s action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is directory. Expiry does not terminate jurisdiction or defeat the secured creditor’s application. The authority remains obliged to act earnestly and facilitate possession at the earliest. The Court also cautioned against routine interim interference without hearing the secured creditor where statutory remedies exist.

• SHANTI DEVI ALIAS SHANTI MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 279

  The Court held that Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the challenge to stopping a pension regularly paid at Darbhanga and demanding repayment. That later cause of action differed from an earlier deduction-refund dispute pursued in Jharkhand. The writ petition was revived, and provisional pension for the substituted widow was ordered from December 2020 pending the High Court’s final decision.

• GURUSIMRAN SINGH NARULA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  05/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 351

  Addressing COVID-era disinfection tunnels and artificial ultraviolet exposure of human beings, the Court held that the Union’s statutory responsibilities extended beyond issuing non-recommendatory advisories when such practices continued. It directed consideration and issuance of necessary ban or regulatory directions under the Disaster Management Act within one month. The Court did not itself impose the blanket ban sought in the petition.

• HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  05/11/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 455

  The Court rejected the claim that repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act automatically substituted the later Act’s lesser punishment, because the repeal provision preserved prosecution and penalties. Nonetheless, it dismissed the complaint: the company had not been convicted, the nominated officer’s derivative conviction could not stand alone, and a prejudicial remand without hearing the company was invalid and unfair after more than thirty years.

• RAJNESH versus NEHA & ANR.

  04/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1093

  The Court affirmed interim maintenance for the wife and son and issued nationwide directions on overlapping maintenance claims, financial disclosure, assessment of quantum, commencement from the application date and enforcement. Prior awards must be disclosed and accounted for; both parties must ordinarily file the prescribed asset-and-liability affidavits. The husband was directed to clear the wife’s arrears within twelve weeks, and the Family Court to decide the substantive claim within six months.

• CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.V. ANIT KUMAR DAS versus ANIT KUMAR DAS

  03/11/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 925

  The Court upheld the Bank’s cancellation of a peon candidate’s candidature. The advertisement expressly excluded graduates, consistently with the Bank’s recruitment policy, and the candidate deliberately concealed his degree. The employer’s prescription was justified for this post; courts could not replace it by treating a higher qualification as automatically sufficient. Both High Court orders directing that he be allowed to work were set aside.

• THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus K. FAZLUR RAHMAN & ANR.

  03/11/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 906

  The State could not supersede the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board merely because nominated members outnumbered elected members. Ensuring the statutory composition was the State’s duty, and the imbalance did not establish wrongdoing by the Board. The Court upheld relief confined to the mutawalli category, invalidated the fresh election for those two seats and restored the earlier members for the remainder of their normal tenure.

• SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus VINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.

  03/11/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 865

  The Court set aside a review order deleting the High Court’s earlier observations recognizing the plaintiffs’ possession. Those observations rested on pleaded facts and evidence, including the defendants’ own request for possession. Absence of a separately framed possession issue caused no prejudice where the parties understood and addressed it. Review could not be used to rehear a supported merits finding as though in appeal.

• RAJESH @ SARKARI & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA

  03/11/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 1

  The Court acquitted two appellants convicted of murder with common intention. Material improvements and the hospital record cast serious doubt on the alleged eyewitnesses’ presence. Unexplained discrepancies in the ballistic reports, coupled with failure to examine their authors, undermined the weapon linkage. Refusal to participate in a test identification parade could not independently establish guilt.

• SHATRUGHNA BABAN MESHRAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

  02/11/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1

  The Court affirmed convictions for the sexual assault and murder of a young child but commuted both death sentences. The proved circumstances formed a complete chain, and murder was established under Section 300 fourthly despite absence of an intention to kill. A lesser punishment was not foreclosed. Article 20(1) also prevented retrospective application of the later, more severe natural-life stipulation under Section 376(2).

• M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. versus ANIL PATNI AND ANOTHER

  02/11/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 373

  The Court upheld consumer orders granting homebuyers refunds for delayed possession. RERA supplies an additional remedy and does not exclude consumer jurisdiction. Withdrawal of an existing consumer complaint to approach the RERA adjudicating officer is optional. A later RERA registration deadline did not postpone the buyers’ accrued rights under their agreements. The builder’s appeals were dismissed with additional costs.

• TOFAN SINGH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

  29/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 583

  By a 2:1 majority, the Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 Evidence Act: confessional statements made to them cannot be used to convict an accused. A statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act cannot be used as a confession at trial. Contrary precedents were overruled, and the individual appeals and special leave petitions were returned to Division Benches for disposal on merits.

• CHUNTHURAM versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  29/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1071

  The Court set aside convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The recovered weapons lacked a proved forensic link, identification of a commonplace lungi was unreliable, and the alleged eyewitness’s serious visual and hearing limitations, surrounding circumstances and conduct undermined his account. The asserted past enmity did not cure these deficiencies. Where the evidence permits two views, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

• THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus HEEM SINGH

  29/10/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 951

  The Court set aside reinstatement of a police constable dismissed following disciplinary proceedings concerning his connection with a murder. His criminal acquittal did not conclude the disciplinary enquiry. Although proof of conspiracy remained difficult, the surrounding evidence bore on the force’s integrity and public confidence. Under Article 142, cessation of service was notionally deferred until minimum qualifying service, preserving retiral dues without back wages.

• THOMAS LAWRENCE versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  29/10/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 325

  The Court held that an execution application seeking compliance with an NGT direction had become infructuous because the Collector had passed an order pursuant to that direction. The petitioner remained free to challenge the Collector’s order through the appropriate proceedings. A challenge filed within eight weeks was protected against dismissal solely for delay. The Court did not decide the disputed wetland classification or the legality of reclamation on merits.

• MRS RITIKA SHARAN versus MR SUJOY GHOSH

  28/10/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 363

  The Court permitted a mother employed in Singapore to take her child there, replacing the restraint confining him to Bengaluru. His welfare, established care arrangement and wishes justified relief under Article 142. The father received structured video contact and in-person access, and relocation to another country required prior permission. The arrangement remained subject to final orders in guardianship proceedings.

• DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  28/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 557

  The Court refused to extend mining leases for periods when operations were obstructed by judicial orders pending forest notification. An extension had to rest on statute or contract and comply with the governing mining policy. Instead, it directed refund of eligible security deposits and advance royalties for the obstructed period, adding nine per cent simple interest under Article 142 because the leaseholders’ money had remained blocked without fault on their part.

• SATYAMA DUBEY & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  27/10/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 517

  In petitions concerning the Hathras incident, the Court left monitoring of the ongoing CBI investigation to the Allahabad High Court, which was already seized of suo motu proceedings. It directed CRPF protection for the victim’s family and witnesses within a week as a confidence-building measure. The merits, the alleged illegal cremation and any future transfer of trial remained open. Identifying family details were to be removed from the High Court’s records.

• RAVEEN KUMAR versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  26/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1044

  The Court upheld reversal of an NDPS acquittal where the trial court relied on an untested bail reply and misread the witness evidence. Police testimony could support conviction upon careful scrutiny, and the hostile independent witness substantially corroborated the recovery process. The existing two-year sentence was left undisturbed despite the Court finding it substantially below the applicable statutory punishment; no further reduction was granted.

• M. RAVINDRAN versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

  26/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 915

  The Court restored default bail where the accused applied after the 180-day investigation period expired and before an additional complaint was filed later that day. Filing the application with willingness to furnish bail enforced the accrued right; later prosecution filings or judicial delay could not defeat it. Actual release remained subject to compliance with bail conditions. Passport surrender, reporting and travel restrictions were added.

• RAJESH DHIMAN versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  26/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1057

  The Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of NDPS acquittals. The complainant’s role as investigator did not by itself establish bias; reliable official testimony sustained recovery despite the independent witness’s unsupportive account. The alleged unknown passenger’s ownership of the contraband was fanciful rather than a reasonably probable alternative. Section 50’s personal-search safeguard did not extend to the backpack from which the narcotics were recovered.

• STATE OF U.P. versus SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.

  16/10/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 571

  The Court maintained the setting aside of the warehousing tender cancellation because the contractor had suffered actual prejudice from the absence of a hearing. Breach of natural justice does not automatically invalidate every decision; prejudice must be assessed in context. The High Court nevertheless exceeded the relief sought by also quashing inquiry reports and disciplinary directions, which were restored without deciding individual culpability.

• NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

  16/10/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 572

  Kumaun University teachers whose superannuation does not fall on June 30 are entitled under Statute 16.24 to continue on re-employment until the following June 30. The proviso protects students against disruption during the academic session and is not confined to extending service to the end of the retirement month. The Court set aside the contrary High Court decision and directed reinstatement with full salary where necessary.

• SARAVANAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  15/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1035

  Default bail cannot be made conditional on depositing the amount allegedly involved in the offence. An undertaking given during an earlier regular bail application did not justify that condition. The Court deleted the Rs.8,00,000 deposit requirement and replaced daily police attendance with cooperation and attendance when called for investigation, preserving the remaining bail conditions.

• STATE OF U.P. versus GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI

  15/10/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 959

  The Court set aside two months’ interim medical bail because the High Court had omitted material medical-board and super-speciality hospital reports. Those reports showed ongoing treatment and controlled conditions, and the High Court had not established inadequacy of the available treatment or a medical need for release. The requirement of humane treatment and proper medical care for prisoners was affirmed; the pending regular bail application remained unaffected.

• SATISH CHANDER AHUJA versus SNEHA AHUJA

  15/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 189

  A shared household under the Domestic Violence Act need not belong to the husband or a joint family in which he has a share. The Court rejected the restrictive interpretation in S.R. Batra and upheld remand of the father-in-law’s possession suit because the daughter-in-law’s statutory residence defence required adjudication. Residence rights remain subject to lawful eviction and balancing of competing interests; domestic violence orders are relevant but do not conclusively bind the civil court.

• GANESAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  14/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 768

  The Court affirmed a POCSO sexual-assault conviction on the child victim’s sole testimony, found trustworthy and of sterling quality despite her mother turning hostile. Rather than remand over the short interval between legal-aid appointment and appellate disposal, the Court heard the merits itself, considering the record and sentence already served. State-paid compensation, recoverable from the accused only if he had sufficient means, was maintained.

• HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION OF MUDUMALAI versus IN DEFENCE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ANIMALS AND ORS. ETC.

  14/10/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 273

  The Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s authority to notify the Sigur Plateau elephant corridor and accepted the expert identification and restrictions on commercial activity. It nevertheless appointed an inquiry committee to hear individual objections concerning alleged acreage discrepancies, sealing of resorts and removal of fencing. The judgment did not finally reject those factual grievances or automatically reopen the sealed establishments.

• ANIL BHARDWAJ versus THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  13/10/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 442

  The Court upheld rejection of a selected District Judge candidate whose criminal case remained pending when suitability was assessed. He had disclosed the case; concealment was not the basis of rejection. Acquittal more than a year later did not require reopening the completed recruitment, although the Court expressly clarified that the acquittal had removed any stigma associated with the criminal case.

• RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS. versus RADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS & ORS.

  13/10/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 462

  A pre-emptor who waived the right when the property was first sold after the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act became operative could not revive it on a later sale. The Court rejected a recurring right for every successive transaction and restored dismissal of the pre-emption suit as barred by limitation. Its ruling concerns the same claimant’s surrendered right over the same property, rather than extinguishing every other person’s independent entitlement.

• AMAR SINGH versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

  12/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 751

  The Court set aside concurrent murder convictions because the sole supporting eyewitness’s presence and account were seriously doubtful. His conduct, the hospital record, lack of corroboration and unresolved compatibility of the recovered broken-tip knife with the injuries undermined proof beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling applied the general permissibility of conviction on one wholly reliable witness while finding that standard unmet on these facts.

• FERRODOUS ESTATES (PVT.) LTD. versus P. GOPIRATHNAM (DEAD) & ORS.

  12/10/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 673

  The Court restored specific performance of a land-sale agreement requiring the vendors to obtain Urban Land Ceiling permission. The binding Full Bench ruling did not invalidate that contractual arrangement; in any event, repeal removed the statutory impediment without affecting a saved or vested right here. Litigation delay and price escalation alone did not justify refusing performance to the ready and willing purchaser. Its own offer of Rs.1.25 crores was made payable within eight weeks.

• BIKRAMJIT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

  12/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 875

  Only the designated Special Court, or the Sessions Court acting in its absence, could extend the UAPA investigation period beyond 90 days; State-police investigation did not confer that power on the Magistrate. The accused’s timely default-bail application survived its erroneous dismissal and the subsequent charge-sheet. The Court granted default bail, recognising its protection under Article 21, while preserving lawful arrest or re-arrest on cogent grounds.

• ANAND YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  12/10/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 925

  The Court upheld eligibility of M.Ed. candidates for the 2016 recruitment of Assistant Professors in Education, relying on the recruiting authority’s expert assessment and the UGC and NCTE positions. This was purpose-specific equivalence of distinct postgraduate degrees, not identity for all posts. The High Court had wrongly relied on a precedent involving different dual qualifications and proceeded without the authorities or affected candidates. Results were directed to be declared forthwith.

• KARULAL & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  09/10/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 494

  The Court affirmed convictions for rioting and murder with common-object liability. The deceased’s children were not disqualified as witnesses by relationship, and their accounts were supported by an unrelated witness and medical evidence. Past enmity could support motive as well as false implication; it did not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony. Other witnesses turning hostile did not defeat the sufficient evidence remaining on record.

• ASHISH SETH versus SUMIT MITTAL AND OTHERS

  09/10/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 525

  In continuing contempt proceedings over a court-recorded settlement, the Court allocated licence-renewal fees and document obligations between the Seth and Mittal groups. It required completion of renewal within eight weeks and undertakings to pay external development charges under the parties’ chosen settlement scheme without disputing the official computation. The applications were disposed of, while the contempt matter remained listed for compliance rather than culminating in a fresh punishment order.

• NILAY GUPTA versus CHAIRMAN NEET PG MEDICAL AND DENTAL ADMISSION/ COUNSELLING BOARD 2020 AND PRINCIPAL GOVT. DENTAL COLLEGE & ORS.

  09/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 161

  An NRI quota in private postgraduate medical admissions is discretionary, not a compulsory or immutable 15% entitlement. Nevertheless, its last-minute withdrawal after candidates had committed themselves was unfair in the particular pandemic-disrupted process. The Court rejected automatic admission directions and ordered a narrowly confined merit-based counselling round to minimise displacement, expressly limiting the remedy and timing observations to the case.

• MISS ‘A versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

  08/10/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 515

  The accused was not entitled to a certified copy of the sexual-exploitation complainant’s Section 164 statement merely because a charge-sheet had been filed. The right arises after cognizance and issuance of process at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208 CrPC, pursuant to appropriate court orders. The Court set aside the contrary High Court order despite the copy already having been supplied, emphasising confidentiality and its earlier directions in Shivanna.

• ANKITA KAILASH KHANDELWAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  08/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1007

  The Court relaxed a bail condition barring three accused doctors from their medical college and hospital so they could complete postgraduate training under their existing guide. Pending prosecution could not unnecessarily penalise their educational careers. The college suspension was based on the FIR, without the prima facie ragging finding required by statute, and did not bar the relief. Re-entry remained subject to witness protection, attendance and residence safeguards; the criminal merits were left open.

• COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. versus UMESH KUMAR

  07/10/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 583

  Candidates provisionally selected before correction of a faulty answer key had no vested right to appointment when the lawful revised result placed them below the category cut-off. Completion of medical and antecedent checks and supply of recruitment forms did not alter that position before an appointment offer. The Court set aside mandamus directing their appointment; one candidate’s voluntary resignation from another force did not justify preference over higher-ranked candidates.

• SATYA DEO @ BHOOREY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  07/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 128

  The appellant, aged under 18 when the 1981 offence occurred, was entitled to the amended Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 despite being an adult when it commenced. The 2015 Act preserved application of the 2000 Act to the pending proceedings. The Court maintained the murder conviction, set aside life imprisonment and referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, including consideration of fine and compensation, without directing unconditional release.

• AMIT SAHNI versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

  07/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 151

  After the Shaheen Bagh blockade had been cleared, the Court disposed of the appeal while explaining the limits of protest on public ways. Speech and peaceful assembly deserve State protection, subject to reasonable restrictions and balancing with others’ rights. Indefinite occupation obstructing commuters was impermissible. The administration must keep public ways clear and exercise its own lawful powers rather than await judicial directions; the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act was not decided.

• T. K. DAVID versus KURUPPAMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS.

  05/10/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 663

  The Court declined a special leave petition challenging only rejection of High Court review when the main judgment had already been unsuccessfully challenged in an earlier SLP. Dismissal of that earlier SLP without merger did not preclude an available statutory review, which the High Court had considered on merits. It did not, however, permit indirect modification of the final main judgment through an SLP against review rejection alone.

• GURCHARAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

  01/10/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 742

  The Court quashed the husband’s conviction for abetment of suicide because the findings rested on speculation about a young mother’s unmet expectations rather than proved instigation, intentional aid or culpable omission. The lower courts had not established the requisite mens rea or harassment connecting him to the death. An unnatural death in the matrimonial home did not by itself establish abetment.

• M/S. MAGMA FINCORP LTD. versus RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI

  01/10/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 59

  A hire-purchase financier retains ownership until the hirer satisfies the agreement and exercises the purchase option, and may lawfully repossess on default under the contract without violence or intimidation. Notice depends on express or implied contractual terms; it was required here by the financier’s own construction and conduct. The Court replaced a full refund and damages award unsupported by assessed loss with a composite Rs.15,000 for deficient notice and costs.

• PRAVASI LEGAL CELL & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  01/10/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 102

  The Court prescribed a pandemic-specific framework for cancelled-flight refunds, distinguishing bookings and travel during lockdown from later travel and other cases. Financially distressed airlines could issue transferable, enhanced-value credit shells in the residual category, usable until 31 March 2021, with safeguards for agent bookings and refunds. The Court refused a longer credit-shell period and directed DGCA to secure compliance rather than deciding every broader contention.

• GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

  01/10/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 886

  The Court quashed Gujarat’s pandemic notifications exempting factories from ordinary working-hour protections and replacing double overtime wages with proportionate pay. The economic slowdown did not establish the grave threat to State security required for a public emergency under Section 5 of the Factories Act. Statutory labour protections and constitutional dignity could not be displaced merely to reduce employers’ costs. Eligible workers were directed to receive statutory overtime from issuance of the notifications.

• PARVEZ NOORDIN LOKHANDWALLA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

  01/10/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 117

  The Court permitted an accused on temporary bail to travel to the United States for eight weeks to attend to Green Card revalidation. Bail restrictions must bear a proportionate relationship to securing attendance and protecting investigation and trial. His repeated returns to India undermined the asserted flight risk; registration of an FIR alone did not justify refusal. Permission was subject to an undertaking, court attendance and immediate passport redeposit on return.

• SUBED ALI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

  30/09/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 731

  The Court affirmed three murder convictions with common-intention liability. The appellant who did not strike the victims nevertheless participated by intercepting them, joining pursuit and facilitating the fatal assault. Acquittal of two other accused did not create parity against consistent evidence identifying these appellants. Absence of a separate Section 34 charge caused no prejudice where the relevant facts and evidence were the same.

• SATISH @ SABBE versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  30/09/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 21

  The Court directed conditional premature release of two life convicts after repeated executive refusals failed to apply the statutory criteria of antecedents, prison conduct and likelihood of a peaceable life. Age, gravity of the original offence and unsubstantiated apprehensions did not replace that assessment. Their convictions remained untouched; release was on probation under the Uttar Pradesh statute, subject to conditions and recall for misconduct.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus AMIT SHRIVAS

  29/09/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 46

  The Court rejected compassionate appointment for the dependent of a permanent work-charged employee because permanent status did not constitute regular service and the applicable policy provided only a monetary grant. Later provision for appointments was not retrospective. Exercising Article 142, the Court nevertheless increased the grant from one lakh to two lakh rupees and directed release of the existing deposit with its accrued interest.

• MAHESHWAR TIGGA versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

  28/09/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 482

  The Court acquitted the appellant of rape, hurt and wrongful restraint after finding that the prosecution had not reliably established the prosecutrix’s minority and that their prolonged relationship was consensual on the evidence. A marriage promise genuinely intended at inception did not become fraudulent merely because marriage later failed over religious and societal obstacles. The perfunctory examination of the accused also denied a proper opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances.

• ANWAR ALI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

  25/09/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 878

  The Court restored the trial court’s acquittal in a circumstantial murder prosecution because the alleged recoveries were materially doubtful and the prosecution had not completed the chain of circumstances. The High Court improperly treated substantial contradictions as minor. An appellate court may reassess evidence in an acquittal appeal, but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence and a reasonable view supporting acquittal.

• BELI RAM versus RAJINDER KUMAR & ANR.

  23/09/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 31

  The Court upheld the employer’s liability and the insurer’s exoneration where a truck driver’s licence had remained unrenewed for almost three years. Initial verification of a licence did not discharge the employer’s continuing duty to exercise reasonable care about renewal. The injured employee’s own negligence did not defeat compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on these facts; allocation of fault under a motor accident claim was outside the proceedings.

• SRI NILANJAN BHATTACHARYA versus THE STATE OF KARANATAKA AND OTHERS

  23/09/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 445

  The Court affirmed the return of a young child to the United States with his father after independently assessing welfare, while removing impracticable pandemic certification conditions imposed by the High Court. A foreign custody order was relevant but subordinate to the child’s interests. Return remained subject to travel regulations and detailed arrangements securing the mother’s accommodation, communication and annual access, pending orders of a competent custody court.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S G S CHATHA RICE MILLS & ANR.

  23/09/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 571

  The Court held that the notification raising customs duty on Pakistani goods to 200 per cent operated from its actual electronic publication at 20:46:58 on 16 February 2019. It did not apply to goods already arrived for which bills of entry and self-assessment had been completed earlier that day. The statutory power did not authorize retrospective enhancement, and the subsequent notification supplied no ground for reassessing correctly assessed imports. A separate concurring opinion reached the same result.

• STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus M/S RDS PROJECT LIMITED & ORS. ETC. ETC.

  22/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 837

  The Court set aside the High Court’s direction for a load test before reconstruction of the distressed Palarivattom flyover. The State had accepted a five-member expert committee’s reasoned assessment of competing technical reports. Judicial review required examination of arbitrariness under Article 14, rather than substituting the court’s preferred technical course merely to avoid controversy. The pending writ petitions were directed to be disposed of within six months.

• NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PEOPLE’S MOVEMENTS & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

  22/09/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 997

  The Court upheld Maharashtra’s High Powered Committee classifications for temporary pandemic-related prison release. The scheme was an additional measure to reduce overcrowding, not a direction to release every prisoner or a substitute for ordinary bail law. Exclusion based on offence severity and special statutory bail restrictions was reasonable. Individual discrimination within the same eligible category remained reviewable, and representations for future modification could be made to the Committee.

• RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA & ANR. versus NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU & ORS.

  21/09/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 299

  The Court quashed NLSIU’s separate 2020 admission notice and directed admission through CLAT. Academic Council recommendations were required for changing the mode and manner of admission; general executive powers did not displace that statutory role. Consortium membership also bound the University to CLAT. The short-notice home examination and technical demands denied equal opportunity. Actual malpractice allegations were left to factual investigation, and disruption of the academic calendar did not justify the departure.

• SAGUFA AHMED & ORS. versus UPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  18/09/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 472

  The Court upheld dismissal of a belated company appeal beyond the statutory condonation ceiling. Even counting from counsel’s receipt of the certified order, the ordinary forty-five-day limitation had expired before the pandemic extension began. The Court construed its 23 March 2020 order as extending limitation, without enlarging the additional discretionary period for condonation. The tribunal could not admit the appeal filed after that further period had also expired.

• B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. versus D. SARALA & ANR.

  18/09/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 1

  The Court upheld partial specific performance for 200 of the 300 square yards agreed to be sold, with proportionately reduced consideration. The purchaser’s readiness and willingness were proved, but relief against the transferee of the remaining land was time-barred after his late impleadment. A separate challenge to his conveyance failed for non-joinder of its executant. The vendor could not use her own transfer of part of the property to frustrate enforcement of the balance.

• M/S. MSD REAL ESTATE LLP versus THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS & ANR.

  17/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1027

  The Court declined interference with recovery of an outstanding stamp penalty from a subsequent property purchaser, while directing the parties to follow the same-day companion judgment reducing the penalty by half. Submission of post-dated cheques did not constitute an approved substitute for depositing the amount. The purchaser could seek reconsideration of building permission after payment. Later municipal and revenue actions were outside the original writ dispute and left open to separate lawful remedies.

• PAPPU DEO YADAV versus NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

  17/09/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 968

  The Court enhanced compensation for a young typist whose right arm was amputated, holding that future prospects are available in permanent-injury claims as well as death cases. Functional earning loss required assessment against the victim’s vocation rather than mechanically halving limb disability. On the evidence, the Court fixed monthly income at ten thousand rupees, added forty per cent for future prospects and assessed earning impairment at sixty-five per cent, retaining the other compensation heads.

• TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  17/09/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 268

  The Court reduced a stamp-duty penalty from ten times to five times the deficiency. Section 40 vested discretion rather than mandating the maximum. Although describing a transfer as a deed of assent with intent to evade duty justified a penalty, that reason alone did not justify the extreme multiplier. The appeal was confined to quantum; the deficient duty and treatment of the document were not reopened.

• JUGUT RAM versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  16/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1140

  The Court altered a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where a lathi assault arose in the heat of a land dispute without premeditation. Intention and knowledge had to be inferred cumulatively from the circumstances, manner of assault and injuries, rather than from death following a head injury alone. Having already undergone the maximum sentence under Section 304 Part II, the appellant was directed to be released.

• GOVERNMENT OF INDIA versus 1.VEDANTA LIMITED (FORMERLY CAIRN INDIA LTD.) 2. RAVVA OIL (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. 3. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LIMITED

  16/09/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1

  The Court upheld enforcement of the Malaysian-seated Ravva production-sharing award. An enforcement petition is governed by the three-year residuary limitation, with delay capable of condonation; it is not initially execution of an Indian civil decree. The Indian court independently tests the limited statutory refusal grounds without reviewing merits or the seat court’s judgment. Applying the unamended public-policy provision, the tribunal’s contractual interpretation supplied no basis to refuse enforcement.

• BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED versus MEDIMA LLC

  16/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1036

  The Court declined appointment of an arbitrator under individual purchase orders because the pricing and payment disputes fell within the comprehensive main agreement’s ICC arbitration clause. Related arbitration clauses had to be reconciled against the transaction and actual dispute. The main agreement expressly covered earlier transactions, and an ICC tribunal was already constituted. The Court also declined interference with refusal of an interim injunction against that tribunal.

• NEETU KUMAR NAGAICH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

  16/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1015

  The Court set aside an unsatisfactory closure report concerning a law student’s death and ordered a fresh investigation by an entirely new State police team. Protracted inaction, changing explanations and a hurried no-clue conclusion undermined the investigation’s bona fides. Fair investigation forms part of the constitutional guarantee of a fair process, and exceptional failures can justify de novo investigation despite submission of a final report. A CBI transfer was not directed.

• JEET RAM versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, CHANDIGARH

  15/09/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 558

  The Court upheld reversal of acquittal for possession of thirteen kilograms of charas, finding that the trial court’s doubts contradicted the evidence. The bag search did not attract the personal-search safeguard; consistent official testimony and the appellant’s control and knowledge established possession. Speculative tampering concerns overlooked the Magistrate’s signatures on the parcels. The conviction and monetary penalty remained, but imprisonment was reduced from fifteen to ten years on the particular sentencing circumstances.

• ABHILASHA versus PARKASH & ORS.

  15/09/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 244

  The Court distinguished an adult unmarried Hindu daughter’s maintenance right under personal law from the narrower summary remedy before a Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC. Without inability attributable to physical or mental abnormality or injury, the latter provision did not sustain maintenance beyond majority. A claim under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act remained available on pleading and proving inability to maintain herself. The appeal failed with liberty to pursue that remedy.

• NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V

  11/09/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 517

  The Court allowed deduction of NCDC’s non-refundable development grants as expenditure of its statutory business. Interest earned on temporarily idle funds was business income and retained that character within the common fund. Grant disbursement was the Corporation’s core activity and an actual outgoing, unlike recoverable loans; the source of funds did not determine deductibility. The Court restored the Commissioner (Appeals)’ approach and separately recommended improvements to government dispute resolution and advance tax rulings.

• RIZWAN KHAN versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  10/09/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 546

  The Court affirmed conviction for ganja possession despite hostile independent witnesses. Reliable police testimony was not legally dependent on independent corroboration, and the record established statutory procedural compliance and sample identity. A sample-number discrepancy was clerical on the evidence. Failure to establish motorcycle ownership or later recover it did not defeat proved recovery from the accused. The Court declined reduction of the five-year sentence.

• PRAVIN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  10/09/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1078

  The Court upheld dismissal of a CISF officer for corruption, falsifying a diary entry and intimidating a subordinate. Judicial review did not permit another appeal on evidentiary merits where the inquiry afforded fair opportunity and findings rested on evidence. Truth-seeking questions by the inquiry officer did not establish bias. Failure to launch a criminal prosecution did not defeat disciplinary action on its different standard of proof, and dismissal was proportionate to the grave breach of trust.

• RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS versus GOVERDHAN LAL SONI AND ANR.

  09/09/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 238

  The Court upheld pension entitlement of surplus employees absorbed into RSRTC who timely opted for its pension scheme and whose employee and employer provident-fund contributions had been transferred. No additional capital-value payment from the former employer was required. Equitably modifying relief, the Court required return of CPF benefits including excess gratuity within two months, permitted retention of CPF pension already received, and made the new pension payable only from the deposit date without interest.

• STALIN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  09/09/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 283

  The Court altered murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I after a sudden quarrel among friends at a beer gathering led to a knife stabbing. A single injury did not automatically exclude murder; the surrounding circumstances and sudden-fight exception governed. Because the knife caused injury to a vital part, Part I rather than the requested Part II applied. The Court imposed eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

• SHREYAS SINHA versus THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

  09/09/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 869

  The Court upheld implementation of West Bengal’s enhanced domicile reservation at NUJS from the next academic session. Although the amendment commenced immediately on Gazette publication, it did not require altering admissions already initiated with disclosed seat categories and student choices. The University’s decision was fair and consistent with the statute. The appellant established no wrongful denial warranting admission in the following year.

• M/S BANGALORE CLUB versus THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ANR.

  08/09/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 488

  The Court held Bangalore Club outside the wealth-tax provision for specified associations of persons. Members of the social club had not combined for a business purpose of earning income or profits. Independently, equal entitlement to surplus on liquidation made their shares determinate despite fluctuating membership. The anti-avoidance provision did not add every association as a new taxable class. The contrary Chikmagalur Club decision was overruled and the assessments could not stand.

• THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus SMT. SOMWATI AND OTHERS

  07/09/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 1132

  The Court affirmed consortium awards to spouses, children and parents in motor-accident death claims but removed separate awards for loss of love and affection. Consortium encompasses spousal, parental and filial relationships; love and affection is already included in that head. Earlier decisions that had not considered the disputed issue did not establish contrary rules. The tribunals were directed to recompute the awards, and a direction diverting one insurer’s statutory deposit to a fund was also set aside.

• THE KARAD URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus SWWAPNIL BHINGARDEVAY & ORS.

  04/09/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 465

  The Court restored approval of a resolution plan after finding NCLAT’s remand unjustified. The creditors and successful applicant had consciously considered the disputed ethanol machinery and business contingencies; the tribunal could not replace their commercial assessment. Matching liquidation figures did not establish leakage on this record, and an isolated date error did not prove late submission. The invitation had to be judged under the regulation then in force, rather than a later newspaper-publication requirement.

• R. POORNIMA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  04/09/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 89

  The Court rejected serving District Judges’ claim to combine their earlier advocacy with judicial service to qualify for consideration for High Court appointment from the service stream. Article 217(2), Explanation (a), counts specified experience following judicial office, rather than advocacy preceding it. The stream for consideration depends on the candidate’s status when considered; eligibility computation does not permit simultaneous claims in the service and Bar streams.

• ILANGOVAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

  02/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1132

  The Court upheld the appellant’s convictions for culpable homicide and causing hurt, rejecting automatic parity with acquitted co-accused. The evidence of related witnesses required careful scrutiny rather than exclusion. Their consistent account of the appellant’s iron-rod attacks was supported by medical evidence, while the allegations against the others had distinct weaknesses. Partial rejection of testimony did not require its wholesale rejection.

• SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. versus THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

  02/09/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1003

  The Court invalidated a demand for the market value of seven tenements that a developer had failed to provide under an urban-land exemption. The developer remained responsible for the exemption conditions despite transferring development rights, but his undertaking to pay could not confer a recovery power absent from the statute. The authority could pursue statutory consequences for breach; it could not treat the unsupported market-value demand as land-revenue arrears.

• M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR versus PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI, ETC. ETC

  02/09/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 1075

  The Court held that complaints alleging false evidence and fabricated accounts intended to influence pending civil proceedings could not be converted into private complaints to bypass Sections 195 and 340 CrPC. The exception permitting prosecution for forgery committed before a document enters court custody did not extend to the distinct false-evidence bar. Although conversion and process were invalid, dismissal of the original complaints was excessive; they were restored for consideration under the prescribed statutory procedure.

• SARIKA versus ADMINISTRATOR, MAHAKALESHWAR MANDIR COMMITTEE, UJJAIN (M.P.) & ORS.

  01/09/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 303

  In continuing supervision of Mahakaleshwar Temple preservation, the Court directed measures against chemical and mechanical erosion of the Shivalingam and required structural assessment, repairs and heritage restoration. Devotee rubbing and Panchamrita offerings were restricted while traditional temple rituals were expressly accommodated. Expert inspections, recording of sanctum proceedings, development plans and removal of nearby encroachments were made subject to reports and further monitoring.

• M/S. L. R. BROTHERS INDO FLORA LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

  01/09/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 1043

  The Court upheld customs duty on imported inputs used by a floriculture export-oriented unit for cut flowers sold domestically in breach of export-policy conditions. The earlier exemption notification measured the input-duty liability by the duty on the finished articles as if imported; it did not tax home-grown flowers as imports. The 2001 change to actual input-duty calculation was a substantive prospective concession. Wilful suppression on the record justified the extended limitation period.

• UNION OF INDIA versus ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

  01/09/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 541

  The Court fixed a ten-year instalment schedule for payment of adjudicated telecom AGR dues, with an initial ten-percent payment, undertakings and continuing bank guarantees. Reassessment of the settled demand was prohibited. Spectrum sharing did not transfer a licensee’s historical AGR liability to the other operator; trading liability depended on the applicable guidelines. Questions whether spectrum rights could enter insolvency proceedings and the status of government dues were left open for NCLT to decide.

• THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus M/S. THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED

  01/09/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1158

  The Court set aside High Court orders directing a particular anti-dumping investigation and initiating contempt, and removed the direction to replace the Designated Authority. Seeking updated data complied with the prescribed investigation process and was not arbitrary. Anti-dumping investigations operate within strict timelines, and stale data cannot ordinarily support a levy for later periods. Judicial review remains available but should not become continuous supervision of the authority’s technical investigation.

• JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LIMITED & ANR.

  31/08/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 301

  The Court sustained change-in-law compensation for a generating project whose bid and power purchase agreement were based on domestic coal, despite an imported-coal backup arrangement. Changes to domestic coal policy impaired the underlying supply assurance and entitled the generator to restitution for the actual domestic-coal shortfall, including carrying cost. The appeals succeeded only on interest: the Court reduced the contractual late-payment burden to applicable SBAR capped at nine percent, compounded annually.

• MUKESH SINGH versus STATE (NARCOTIC BRANCH OF DELHI)

  31/08/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 245

  The Constitution Bench held that an investigation is not automatically unfair or invalid merely because the informant also investigates the case. Bias or prejudice must be examined on the particular facts; that combination of roles alone does not entitle an accused to acquittal, including under the NDPS Act. Mohan Lal and decisions adopting the contrary automatic-acquittal rule were expressly overruled. The individual petitions were returned for decision on their merits.

• IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. versus IN RE:

  31/08/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 510

  Following the earlier contempt conviction concerning two tweets, the Court considered the defence and sentence, rejected recall of the conviction, and imposed a nominal fine of one rupee. It held that justification by truth requires public interest and bona fides, which the affidavit did not satisfy on its assessment. The Court distinguished fair criticism from scandalous attacks undermining public confidence. Imprisonment and debarment from Supreme Court practice were directed only in default of payment.

• DR. VIJAY MALLYA versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

  31/08/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 658

  The Court dismissed review of the finding holding Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt for incomplete asset disclosure and breach of restraint orders. It acknowledged that the earlier judgment incorrectly stated that no reply had been filed, but examination of the omitted reply showed no prejudice: it neither disputed the relevant undertaking and orders nor explained the breach. Repetition of arguments already rejected did not justify rehearing in review.

• TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

  31/08/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 583

  The Constitution Bench held that States may provide a separate admission channel for in-service doctors to postgraduate medical degree courses within the State quota. MCI Regulation 9 did not exhaust that field or prohibit such provision, provided the prescribed NEET eligibility and minimum standards were maintained. The contrary view in Dinesh Singh Chauhan was displaced to that extent. The Court required service safeguards, protected existing admissions and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s contrary decision.

• PRANEETH K. AND ORS. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS.

  28/08/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 917

  The Court upheld UGC’s revised guidelines requiring final-year and terminal-semester university examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. They concerned educational standards, carried statutory force and violated neither Article 14 nor Article 21. State disaster-management decisions could override the 30 September 2020 deadline to protect health, but could not authorise degrees based solely on previous performance and internal assessment. States unable to meet the deadline could seek rescheduling from UGC. The writ petitions were disposed of with directions and the connected special leave petition dismissed.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT & ORS.

  28/08/2020 · [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1139

  The Court removed NGT directions requiring petrol outlets to withhold fuel from vehicles lacking valid pollution-under-control certificates and requiring the State to deposit Rs.25 crore as compliance security. Environmental enforcement had to follow statutory powers and penalties. NGT retained jurisdiction to require strict implementation of emission and certification rules, and the State remained bound to take lawful registration and penal measures against offending vehicles and responsible persons.

• COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, versus M/S. ADANI GAS LTD.

  28/08/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 875

  Gas connection charges for supplying pipelines and SKID measurement equipment attracted service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. Although the supplier retained possession and effective control, the equipment served customers by ensuring accurate billing, regulated pressure and safe gas delivery. Use neither required physical operation by the customer nor exclusive benefit to it. The refundable-security-deposit argument failed on the evidence. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the adjudicating authority’s order restored.

• M/S. RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED versus K.P. JAYARAM & ANR.

  28/08/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 272

  The Court restored rejection of a corporate insolvency application because the asserted claim was time-barred on the pleadings and no financial debt of the company was established. Funds converted into share application money and used to issue shares to a third party at the claimant’s request were not a continuing company debt. A personal loan to a promoter could not trigger insolvency of the company. The Court preserved independent adjudication of any civil suit on its merits.

• UNION OF INDIA versus ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

  28/08/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 923

  The Court held that police cannot register an FIR, investigate or prosecute cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act through the ordinary police-report procedure. Prosecution must be instituted by persons authorised under Section 32. Drugs Inspectors have statutory power to arrest for such cognizable offences, subject to criminal-procedure and constitutional safeguards. Existing FIRs were directed to the Inspectors, while the ruling excluding police arrest powers was made prospective.

• NAZIR MOHAMED versus J. KAMALA AND ORS.

  27/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 763

  The High Court exceeded its second-appellate jurisdiction by granting recovery of possession without any substantial question of law. The first appellate court’s declaration of the plaintiff’s half share did not automatically entitle him to possession, particularly when tenancy was unproved and the defendant had asserted longstanding possession as owner. The supposed inconsistency between denial of possession and an award of mesne profits rested on a mistaken reading of the decree. The first appellate decree was restored.

• THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

  27/08/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 857

  A five-Judge Bench referred the challenge to Punjab’s preferential reservation for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs to a Bench of seven or more Judges. It considered E.V. Chinnaiah’s prohibition on sub-classification within Scheduled Castes in need of reconsideration, distinguishing rational distribution of reservation benefits from alteration of the Presidential List. Being of coordinate strength, the Bench did not overrule Chinnaiah or finally determine the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act.

• V. SUKUMARAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

  26/08/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 991

  A Fisheries Department employee’s earlier casual-labour service was directed to count for pension on parity with similarly placed casual workers later absorbed and regularised. His successful recruitment through the Public Service Commission, intervening Revenue Department service and subsequent return to Fisheries did not justify denying the benefit of the Government’s beneficial orders. The Court required recalculation and payment of pension arrears within eight weeks with admissible interest and allowed the appeal with costs throughout.

• STATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus RAKESH SETHI & ANR.

  26/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 734

  Madhya Pradesh could prescribe a separate fee for reserving and assigning a chosen vehicle registration number. Assignment under Section 41(6) was a distinct State service, and Sections 65 and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorised the rule and fee despite the Central Government’s power over the ordinary registration fee. The dispute concerned the scope of delegated powers, rather than constitutional repugnancy. Rule 55A was upheld and the High Court’s contrary judgment set aside.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC.

  26/08/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 372

  The Court upheld notifications restricting imports of peas and pulses and the related DGFT trade notices. Section 9A’s safeguard mechanism did not displace the Central Government’s power under Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act to impose import quotas. Article XI of GATT-1994 had not been incorporated into domestic law through those provisions. The actual-user requirement followed the Foreign Trade Policy, and the quota meant aggregate imports rather than an allowance for each licensee. Imports made under interim orders remained subject to Customs Act consequences; statutory appeals concerning import-export codes were left open.

• NARASAMMA & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

  26/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 528

  The Court upheld a decree for possession against defendants who failed to establish either the alleged sale documents or adverse possession. Although adverse possession had been pleaded, claiming title under an agreement and hostile possession from the same date did not establish when possession became adverse to the true owner. Ravinder Kaur Grewal did not relax the requirements of pleading and proof. The appeal was dismissed with costs, with time to vacate until 31 December 2020 subject to an undertaking.

• RAJ PAL SINGH versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, ROHTAK

  25/08/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 185

  For assessment year 1971–1972, capital gains from compulsory acquisition accrued on the award dated 29 September 1970, when the transfer was completed, rather than on the preliminary notification dated 15 May 1968. The beneficiary college’s continued occupation after its lease expired did not amount to Government possession or vesting on notification. Interest awarded from the notification date did not alter that conclusion. A different acquisition involving urgency provisions did not bind the Revenue to the same assessment treatment. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed.

• WG. CDR. ARIFUR RAHMAN KHAN AND ALEYA SULTANA AND ORS. versus DLF SOUTHERN HOMES PVT LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BEGUR OMR HOMES PVT. LTD.) AND ORS.

  24/08/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 136

  Flat buyers were awarded additional compensation for prolonged delay in possession and failure to provide promised amenities. A one-sided agreement limiting delay compensation to Rs 5 per square foot per month did not foreclose the consumer forum’s power to award reasonable relief. Taking possession or executing conveyances did not extinguish the claims. Eleven specific settlements and three buyers who sold their interests were excluded. The Court awarded 6% simple annual interest for the stipulated delay period, in addition to contractual compensation, while rejecting challenges to tax interest, electricity and parking charges.

• SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

  21/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1148

  Purchasers who were not parties to suits challenging agreements to sell failed to establish grounds for leave to appeal. Their independent sale deeds, executed through the owners’ attorneys, were neither challenged nor adjudicated in those suits. The decrees were not judgments in rem and did not bind the purchasers. A non-party seeking appellate leave must demonstrate actual prejudice to legal rights, rather than merely assert it. Refusal of leave was upheld and the appeals dismissed.

• SARDAR BAHGINDER SINGH S/O GURUCHARAN SINGH versus SARDAR MANJIEETH SINGH JAGAN SINGH AND ORS.

  20/08/2020 · [2020] 14 S.C.R. 349

  The authority to nominate four members to the statutory Gurudwara Board belonged to the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan’s entire voting membership, rather than its President, office bearers, Working Committee or the State Government. The State’s notification selecting nominees from conflicting factional claims was invalid. The Court affirmed its quashing and directed completion of the pending change-report inquiries and a lawful nomination process within three months, with the Assistant Charity Commissioner supervising the meeting and determining eligible voters.

• THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT versus M/S. CERA BOARDS AND DOORS, KANNUR KERALA & ORS.

  19/08/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 471

  The Court affirmed remands for fresh excise valuation while replacing the Tribunal’s reasoning with directions distinguishing the regimes before and after 1 July 2000. Authorities had to determine whether Section 4(1)(a) applied or valuation under Section 4(1)(b) and the relevant rules was necessary. Undervaluation findings were final. For the post-amendment period, additional consideration proved for some transactions with a particular dealer could inform valuation of that dealer’s other transactions during the period, but could not automatically be extended to other dealers.

• AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. versus HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED

  19/08/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 791

  Fraudulent inducement, impersonation and diversion of investment funds in this private dispute did not make it non-arbitrable. The fraud exception concerned absence of a valid arbitration agreement or a dispute genuinely arising in the public-law domain. HSBC established a strong prima facie case for interim protection: the Court restored security for the full USD 60 million principal, reversing its reduction to USD 30 million. Factual findings remained provisional and other enforcement objections were left open. A connected investor’s interim application was remanded for fresh disposal.

• MOHD. ANWAR versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

  19/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 150

  The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for robbery with hurt and the Arms Act offence, finding the prosecution evidence reliable and the claims of juvenility and unsoundness of mind unsubstantiated. The record showed prompt reporting despite later formal FIR registration. Neither age records nor adequate evidence of mental incapacity at the time of the offence supported the defences. An attempted medical examination could not proceed because the appellant was untraceable. His appeal was dismissed and custody directed for the remaining sentence.

• GHANSHYAM UPADHYAY versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  19/08/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 983

  The Court rejected an application to scrap the commission inquiring into the alleged police encounter involving Vikas Dubey and replace it with an SIT. Allegations of bias against the Chairman and a member rested on unverified news reports and asserted family connections, without material showing influence or conflict of interest. The commission’s role was fact-finding and recommendatory; the petitioner could participate and its report was to be placed before the Court. Only the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

• DECCAN PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. versus REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES & ORS.

  19/08/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 427

  Cancellation of a written instrument under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is an action in personam and can be arbitrated. Registration of the instrument and the requirement to notify the registering officer do not make the proceeding one binding the world at large. The Court overruled the contrary reasoning in Aliens Developers. Private fraud allegations did not invalidate the existing arbitration agreement, and the appeal against reference of the parties to arbitration was dismissed.

• CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION versus UNION OF INDIA

  18/08/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 425

  The Court refused directions for a fresh COVID-19 national disaster plan, separate minimum-relief guidelines and compulsory transfer of PM CARES contributions to NDRF. The 2019 National Plan covered biological emergencies and was supplemented by operational measures; existing minimum standards applied to the pandemic. NDRF could lawfully fund COVID-19 assistance under its guidelines and remained open to voluntary contributions. PM CARES was treated as a distinct public charitable trust, whose funds were not required to be transferred. The writ petition was dismissed with these clarifications.

• IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. versus IN RE:

  14/08/2020 · [2020] 8 S.C.R. 443

  The Court held Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for two tweets which it found distorted facts and undermined public confidence in the Supreme Court and the institution of the Chief Justice of India. It rejected the objection that Attorney General consent was necessary for these suo motu proceedings. Fair, bona fide criticism remained protected, but the tweets were held to exceed that protection. Twitter was discharged on its explanation as an intermediary and its suspension of the tweets. This judgment determined guilt without imposing sentence.

• BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR versus VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  14/08/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 368

  A financial creditor’s March 2018 insolvency application, pleading default on 8 July 2011, was barred by limitation. Article 137 governed the Section 7 application; neither commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code nor mortgage-related limitation supplied a fresh starting point. Even assuming Section 18 acknowledgment principles applied, the application laid no factual foundation for their invocation. The admission orders and consequential insolvency proceedings were annulled, without prejudicing other proceedings on their merits.

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

  14/08/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 718

  The Court-appointed Monitoring Committee lacked authority to seal or direct demolition of purely residential premises on private land that were not being commercially misused. Its mandate concerned commercial misuse of residential property and specified encroachments or unauthorised construction on public land. Report No. 149, related reports and sealing action were quashed; the affected properties were to be de-sealed and possession restored within three days. The Court left construction legality, regularisation and compounding undecided, preserving statutory authorities’ powers.

• PREET PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  14/08/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 967

  The High Court’s unreasoned suspension of sentence and grant of bail to a husband convicted of dowry death was set aside. Post-conviction release requires recorded, strong and compelling reasons considering the appeal’s prima facie merits and other relevant factors. The conviction rested on evidence and no patent infirmity justifying suspension was demonstrated. Bail bonds were cancelled and surrender directed; the pending conviction appeal’s merits were not decided.

• UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus M/S. K.C. SHARMA & CO. & ORS.

  14/08/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 854

  A suit challenging a final compensation-apportionment decree on fraud failed because the allegation of a collusive lease was neither adequately particularised nor established. The proposal, competitive auction and acceptance had received competent approvals, and possession, cultivation and payments were supported by records. The Court upheld dismissal of the suit, without reopening the correctness of the original 87:13 apportionment decree.

• VINEETA SHARMA versus RAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

  11/08/2020 · [2020] 10 S.C.R. 135

  Amended Section 6 gives daughters born before or after the amendment coparcenary status by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as sons. Earlier-born daughters can claim those rights from 9 September 2005; the father need not then have been alive. Protected transactions before 20 December 2004 remain saved. A notional partition did not dissolve the coparcenary, and preliminary decrees do not prevent recognition of daughters’ rights in pending proceedings. Oral partition requires exceptional, conclusive documentary support. The reference was answered and individual matters left for decision on merits.

• GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. versus ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION

  10/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 941

  The ISRO drivers’ association could not claim recognition as a distinct category solely by job description under the 1993 service-association rules. The Department’s clarification treating employees covered by its Joint Consultative Machinery scheme as a single category supplemented the rules and promoted their common-service-interest objective. The High Court’s contrary literal interpretation was set aside and the Government’s appeal allowed.

• HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

  07/08/2020 · [2020] 13 S.C.R. 318

  A private road never acquired or purchased by the Pune Municipal Corporation did not vest in it merely because the town-planning records wrongly named it as owner. The final arbitral award and admitted records required correction, which was not a substantial alteration converting a public road into private property. The High Court judgment was set aside. Authorities were directed to delete the Corporation’s name and make consequential changes after the Trust undertook to preserve adjacent owners’ access.

• BRAHAMPAL @ SAMMAY AND ANR. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  07/08/2020 · [2020] 9 S.C.R. 504

  A 45-day delay in the parents’ appeal seeking enhanced motor-accident compensation was satisfactorily explained by illness and should have been condoned. The beneficial legislation called for a reasonable, liberal assessment of sufficient cause, while retaining scrutiny of negligence, bona fides and prejudice. The High Court’s hyper-technical dismissal was set aside and the compensation appeal remanded for decision on merits.

• RAMA NAND AND ORS. versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

  06/08/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 19

  The deployment of Delhi Fire Service Telephone Operators as Radio Telephone Operators counted as promotion for the claimed Assured Career Progression benefit. The Court considered together the five-year service threshold, specialised training and substantially higher pay, finding an element of selection beyond mere redesignation or reorganisation. The High Court’s denial of the additional claimed ACP benefit was upheld.

• M/S EXL CAREERS AND ANOTHER versus FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

  05/08/2020 · [2020] 6 S.C.R. 289

  A plaint returned for presentation before the competent court must ordinarily be treated as a fresh plaint and the trial commence de novo. Order VII Rule 10A facilitates appearance without granting the continuation discretion available on statutory transfer. Modern Construction was affirmed and the contrary Oriental Insurance ruling overruled. Nevertheless, considering the appellant’s conduct and the completed evidence, the Court exceptionally declined under Articles 136 and 142 to disturb the order permitting continuation in this case.

• JANHIT ABHIYAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  05/08/2020 · [2020] 7 S.C.R. 158

  Challenges to the 103rd Constitutional Amendment enabling reservation for economically weaker sections raised substantial questions of constitutional interpretation requiring a five-Judge Bench. Questions concerned the equality-based basic structure, economic criteria and reservation beyond the asserted 50% ceiling. The Court expressly declined to decide validity at this stage. Related High Court petitions were transferred to the Supreme Court and the batch referred for constitution of the larger Bench.

• THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COCHIN PORT TRUST versus M/S AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.

  05/08/2020 · [2020] 11 S.C.R. 706

  The reference distinguished unloading dues, for which a steamer agent may be liable, from storage demurrage after the Port Trust takes custody and issues a receipt, payable by the importer, owner, consignee or their agent. Passing title or issuing a delivery order does not control that allocation. Returnable containers must be destuffed and returned promptly. Sale powers remain discretionary but subject to reasonable exercise. The Court preserved the case-specific ground-rent outcome while correcting the High Court’s mandatory reading of the sale provisions.