Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2021

200 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• RAM RATAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 866

  The Court maintained the appellant’s robbery conviction but set aside his conviction under Section 397 read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act. Displaying a deadly weapon to create fear can constitute use without firing it, but the evidence established weapon use only by a co-accused. No Section 34 charge had been framed or corresponding common-intention allegation proved against this appellant. His participation and recovery evidence nevertheless sustained Section 392. Imprisonment was reduced to time already undergone, while the fine and default sentence remained; release was directed subject to payment and absence of another detention requirement.

• GOVINDAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 515

  The Court retained the conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II but reduced imprisonment from ten years to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Review was confined to sentence. The trial court’s unchallenged findings established that the complainant’s family were the aggressors in a pathway dispute, had interfered despite an injunction and had assaulted female members of the accused’s family. The fatal retaliation arose in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, with private defence exceeded. These circumstances justified sentence reduction, while the Rs 5,000 fine and three-month default imprisonment remained.

• BRIJMANI DEVI versus PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 533

  The Court set aside two bail orders concerning alleged attempted murder and the later murder of the same victim. The High Court’s cryptic reasons failed to address the gravity of the allegations, the accused’s antecedents, prior abscondence and the risk of threats to the informant and witnesses. Bail does not require a detailed trial of evidence, but does require a reasoned exercise of discretion on the relevant circumstances. The challenge concerned the justification for granting bail, distinct from cancellation based only on subsequent misconduct. Bail bonds were cancelled and surrender directed within two weeks.

• PARVATI DEVI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 711

  The Court affirmed the husband’s dowry-death conviction and sentence but acquitted the mother-in-law, against whom only omnibus allegations were proved. The wife disappeared from her matrimonial home within months of marriage soon after dowry demands, and her body was identified from its partly intact face and clothes. The evidence established an abnormal death and the foundational conditions for the rebuttable statutory presumption against the husband, whose explanations were rejected. Those conclusions could not substitute for specific evidence against the mother-in-law. The husband was directed to surrender within four weeks; the mother-in-law was ordered released unless required in another case.

• BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED versus ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 940

  The Court withdrew permission for apartment purchasers to pursue a representative consumer complaint for all buyers in the project because the pleadings and reliefs did not establish sameness of interest. Different blocks, periods of delay and responses to offered compensation mattered to that assessment. The complaint itself survived as a joint complaint for the named consumers’ own grievances. Other purchasers could seek joinder if their grievances matched those pleaded, and the intervenors were to be impleaded. The decision did not determine the builder’s liability or award delay compensation.

• PANI RAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1024

  The Court granted disability pension to a Territorial Army Ecological Task Force soldier invalided out with 80% service-attributable disability. The applicable statutory framework extended corresponding Army pension rules to Territorial Army members, and no inconsistent regulation excluding ETF personnel was shown. An internal government communication could not override those rules. The signed certificate concerning enhanced pension did not exclude disability pension and, in any event, could not justify the unfair restriction in these unequal-bargaining circumstances. Pension was directed from 1 January 2012, with arrears and 9% annual interest payable within three months.

• RAVINDER KUMAR DHARIWAL & ANR. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 823

  The Court set aside the first disciplinary inquiry against a CRPF officer whose mental disability contributed to the alleged misconduct, holding the proceedings discriminatory under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The earlier exemption under the repealed 1995 Act had not accrued as a protected privilege and was not saved under the new Act; the 2021 exemption did not apply to this pending case. Disability needed to be a contributing factor, rather than the sole cause. If reassignment became necessary, the officer’s pay and service conditions had to be protected, with an individualized assessment permitting a post without firearms or dangerous equipment.

• MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 978

  The Court rejected a candidate’s claim to consideration for a lower-preference post after selection for Deputy Superintendent of Police failed because he did not meet the advertised height requirement. Under the applicable rules, inclusion in the main list for a higher preference excluded consideration for remaining preferences. The candidate had expressly declared that he met the physical requirements. Reopening his preferences after the common selection process would prejudice candidates selected on truthful declarations. The Commission’s appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

• NGAITLANG DHAR versus PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1009

  The Court restored the resolution-plan approval displaced by the NCLAT at the instance of a bidder seeking consideration of a later revised offer. The bidder had received equal opportunities, refused to improve its bid when asked and knew that its adjournment request had been rejected. The RP and CoC followed a fair and transparent process, so no material irregularity justified interference with the CoC’s commercial decision. A subsequent CIRP extension did not invalidate the earlier deadline-based decision. The plan had also been implemented, financial creditors paid and the debtor revived as a going concern.

• SUNNY ABRAHAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 892

  The Court held that later approval could not validate a disciplinary charge memo issued without the disciplinary authority’s required approval. Approval to initiate proceedings was distinct from approval of the charges. The pending status of the inquiry did not turn a fundamentally invalid memo into a curable irregularity. Restoring the Tribunal’s decision with a modification, the Court permitted a fresh charge memo, if the competent authority considered it warranted after examining the material, within two months; further proceedings could then follow in accordance with law.

• RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU versus GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD AND ORS.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 846

  The Court rejected daily-rated Board employees’ claim to higher scales under State resolutions of 1991 and 1992 which the autonomous Board had not adopted. Adoption of the parent 1988 resolution did not automatically incorporate those later changes. Mistaken grants by some zonal offices, subsequently withdrawn with recovery sought, could not create an Article 14 right to the same benefit. Pay decisions also required regard to the Board’s distinct finances and policy choices. The appeals were dismissed, while benefits under the adopted 1988 resolution were expressly continued.

• K. ANJINAPPA versus K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANR.

  17/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1034

  The Court directed State Bar Councils to conclude advocate-disciplinary complaints within the statutory one-year period and required the Bar Council of India to clear the identified transferred backlog within one year. It deprecated routine inaction that shifted responsibility to the national body and rejected the pandemic as an explanation for earlier delays. Exceptional inability to conclude proceedings required recorded reasons, with transferred matters also to be decided within one year of receipt. Circuit hearings and inquiry-officer panels were identified as possible means of improving disposal. The individual appeal was disposed of without further complaint-specific relief because a later State Bar Council order was already under revision.

• THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MADHU KANT RANJAN & ANR.

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 506

  The Court upheld refusal to award five additional recruitment marks for an NCC B certificate that had not been submitted with the application as the advertisement required. Producing it years after the cutoff and after the physical test did not satisfy that condition. The candidate’s later pleading that he had originally enclosed it was an impermissible improvement on his earlier litigation. An erroneous seventeen-mark entry in the select list did not compel appointment. The State’s appeal was allowed and dismissal of the writ petition restored.

• SAFIQ AHMAD versus ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 560

  In continuing proceedings concerning suspected fraudulent motor-accident and employee-compensation claims, the Court called for faster SIT investigation and a further affidavit identifying charge sheets, filing dates, courts and framing of charges. It urged early lawful completion of disciplinary proceedings against the advocates concerned. Before issuing further nationwide preventive directions, it ordered impleadment and notice to the Union Ministry of Transport and sought its suggestions. Proposals for accident-database integration and SITs in every State remained proposals; the matter was listed for further consideration.

• MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO versus REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS.

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 476

  The Court set aside condonation of a 1,011-day delay in a second appeal because the applicants had not satisfactorily explained the period after their pleaded illness ended. A preference for decision on merits and an award of costs could not replace sufficient cause. The unexplained inaction showed negligence and lack of diligence, and the High Court had not exercised its discretion judicially. The second appeal was consequently dismissed as time-barred; the merits of the injunction dispute were not decided.

• ANITA RANI versus ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 964

  The Court restored decrees in two money-recovery suits where receipt of the plaintiff’s money was admitted but the defendants failed to establish discharge, business accounting or a gratuitous payment. Oral testimony of mediators did not prove full settlement on these banking transactions, and an affidavit unsigned by the plaintiff did not establish a gift. Section 70 supported restitution of the non-gratuitous benefit. The High Court’s reversals were set aside, appellate decrees restored, and costs of Rs.50,000 awarded; the plaintiff’s court deposit was directed to be released with accrued interest.

• M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED versus M/S BEHARILAL MADANLAL JAIPURIA LTD. & ORS.

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1074

  The Court decreed a supplier’s recovery suit on invoices, debit notes and ST-1 forms bearing the purchaser’s admitted stamps and signatures. The purchaser failed to prove its allegations that the transactions were fictitious or the documents signed under duress. A witness producing regularly maintained business records did not have to be their signatory where execution was admitted. The High Court had also relied on grounds not raised in the defence. Its dismissal was set aside and Rs.96,41,765.31 decreed, with interest at 9% per annum on the principal Rs.71,82,266 from institution until realisation.

• THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) & ORS. versus BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 123

  The Court held that the 2012 amendment extending compassionate-appointment eligibility to an unmarried brother of a deceased unmarried female government servant did not cover a death in 2010. Consideration of the application after the amendment did not confer the enlarged benefit. Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment and creates no automatic vested right. The State’s appeal was allowed, the Tribunal and High Court orders were set aside, and the respondent’s application was dismissed.

• IL AND FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LTD. versus M/S. BHARGAVARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 484

  The Court held that allowing impleadment in a first appeal did not automatically justify setting aside the trial decree and ordering a fresh trial. The High Court had supplied neither reasons for adding the party nor an adjudication of the appeal on facts and law. Its impleadment and remand orders were set aside. Both the impleadment application and first appeal were returned to the High Court for decision, including the application’s maintainability and statutory basis. The defendants were directed to deposit Rs.25,000 exemplary costs with the State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

• U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER & ANR. versus NOOR MOHAMMAD & ORS.

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1060

  The Court upheld cancellation of a notification releasing acquired land after finding that the landowners had obtained release through fraud and misrepresentation. Withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48(1) was administrative, and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act supplied power to rescind the notification. A fraudulently obtained release created no vested right protected against cancellation. The release also appeared to have been issued without hearing the beneficiary housing authority. Both appeals were allowed, the landowners’ writ petitions dismissed, and the authority permitted to implement the acquisition’s public purpose.

• P. SATYANARAYANA versus NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 489

  The Court declined to interfere with an interim injunction protecting the plaintiff’s prima facie possession of disputed agricultural land. The High Court had considered the earlier protected-tenant ownership certificate, subsequent conveyances and revenue records distinguishing the competing survey subdivisions. Withdrawal of the vendor’s earlier injunction suit did not defeat interim protection in the circumstances: refusal of interim relief there had not determined lack of possession. The special leave petition was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s interim order in place pending the suit.

• MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD versus MAHESHBHAI TINABHAI RATHOD & ORS.

  16/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 94

  The Court restored refusal to condone delay in two applications to set aside arbitral awards. Section 34(3) permits three months from receipt, with only a further thirty days on sufficient cause; Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend that limit. The borrowers had admittedly refused registered envelopes containing signed awards and were deemed served on that date. Their later receipt of execution notices did not restart limitation. General appeals to a liberal approach or the merits of their defence could not confer an excluded power to condone delay.

• JAIKAM KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  15/12/2021 · [2021] 14 S.C.R. 767

  The Court set aside the convictions and death sentences of three accused in a six-murder case because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The principal witnesses were neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, and the required material corroboration was lacking. Contradictory arrest evidence, doubtful weapon and clothing recoveries, weak motive and missing independent and forensic material undermined the case. Speculation and the accused’s failure to explain could not fill those gaps. Their release was ordered unless required elsewhere; the informant’s appeal against the fourth accused’s acquittal was dismissed.

• JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

  15/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 497

  The Court quashed a Facilitation Council’s payment order made solely because the buyer did not appear in conciliation, without initiating arbitration. Conciliation and adjudicatory arbitration were distinct stages under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The Council could record failed conciliation and commence or refer arbitration, but could not combine the stages and decree the claim by default. The order was a nullity rather than an arbitral award requiring challenge under Section 34. Fresh arbitration remained open, and the underlying monetary claim was left undecided.

• THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR & OTHERS versus MEENAL AGARWAL & OTHERS

  15/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 416

  The Court set aside a mandamus directing a cooperative bank to positively consider or grant one-time settlement to a borrower. Settlement was not available as of right but depended on the scheme’s eligibility conditions and the bank’s informed commercial assessment of recovery prospects. The bank and its advisory committee had considered the borrower’s financial position and adequate security, and a personal hearing had been afforded. The High Court could not substitute its unsupported view that recovery was illusory merely because enforcement proceedings had remained pending for years.

• MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 469

  The Court quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order against the deceased wife’s brother-in-law and mother-in-law because the complaint, police report and other material contained only vague collective allegations rather than specific involvement. The brother-in-law’s separate employment and attendance were supported, and the mere possibility of reaching the incident location did not supply missing allegations. The medical record did not support the asserted additional injuries. Relatives were not immune from prosecution where specific acts disclosed complicity, but mechanically sending these appellants to trial would abuse the process.

• THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I (2), KUMBAKONAM & ANR. versus V. MOHAN & ANR.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 152

  The Court held that forfeiture proceedings against relatives holding property in their own names and possession did not invariably require a primary notice to the convict under SAFEMA. Notice had to reach the affected holder within the Act, with a copy to another person holding on that holder’s behalf where applicable. The authority nevertheless needed objectively supported, recorded reasons connecting the property to the convict’s illegal gains before the reverse burden arose. The High Court’s contrary notice ruling was reversed, and the writ petitions restored for decision on all remaining objections, including delay.

• STATE OF HARYANA versus M/S. SHIV SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION CO. & ANR.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 294

  The Court partly upheld an award for additional road-maintenance costs caused by traffic diverted onto a road designed for much lower use. The contractor’s pleaded amount covered expenditure only up to a stated date and reserved later details, so compensation for continuing expenditure was neither beyond the claim nor outside the reference. The higher compensatory rate did not rewrite the ordinary maintenance price. However, compensation could not continue after the additional traffic ceased. The award was retained through January 2008 and set aside for February 2008 to May 2010, with the payable sum to be recalculated.

• APMC YASHWANTHAPURA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY versus M/S. SELVA FOODS THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 284

  The Court upheld market-fee liability on notified spices imported from outside Karnataka, processed and then sold within the appellant committee’s market area. The exemption for produce on which fee had already been collected within the State did not cover these imported goods. The importer had to collect the fee from the purchaser and remit it. The Court expressly distinguished mere import for cleaning or processing without sale of the processed produce within the market area. The committee’s appeal was allowed and the trader’s writ petition dismissed.

• LOCHAN SHRIVAS versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 14 S.C.R. 809

  The Court maintained the convictions for kidnapping, sexual offences, murder and related offences against a young child, finding a complete circumstantial chain including the accused’s conduct, knowledge of the concealed body and consequential recoveries. A false or absent explanation only reinforced independently proved circumstances. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because the courts below had not properly assessed the offender’s circumstances and prospects of reform. His youth, lack of antecedents, family background and satisfactory prison conduct mattered, while the State supplied no evidence foreclosing rehabilitation. Other sentences remained.

• E S KRISHNAMURTHY & ORS. versus M/S BHARATH HI TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 28

  The Court held that the NCLT could not dispose of a Section 7 insolvency application by directing settlement of unresolved claims instead of deciding admission or rejection under the Code. Settlement with some creditors did not justify that course where others remained unpaid and opposed it. The tribunals could encourage consensual settlement but lacked an independent equitable power to compel it. The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside and the application restored for fresh decision, leaving other maintainability questions, including the amended creditor threshold, open.

• BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. versus SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 882

  The Court set aside orders granting temporary status to a casual worker who had not established the required engagement within a single twelve-month period under the 1989 telecommunications scheme. The tribunals misread a verification report finding at most thirty-eight days in a year and wrongly aggregated engagement over several years. They also failed to record evidence as directed on remand, despite disputed photocopied certificates. Umadevi did not authorise that method of computing eligibility. BSNL’s appeals were allowed and the orders granting relief quashed.

• M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus SRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 725

  The Court dismissed contempt petitions alleging noncompliance with earlier land-acquisition directions. Following a later Court order, the State issued a fresh notification and made an award, which did not establish deliberate disobedience. The latest acquisition had not invoked urgency, so the claimed Section 40 benefits did not arise on that basis. Challenges to land classification and market value belonged in the statutory compensation remedies. Those issues remained expressly open, and dismissal of contempt did not affirm the award’s valuation.

• DIAMOND EXPORTS & ANR. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 993

  The Court declined to interfere with the NCDRC’s reasoned condonation of delay in filing an insurer’s written statement before the Constitution Bench’s decision of 4 March 2020. That decision fixed a strict thirty-day period with only fifteen additional days but operated prospectively. Earlier interim directions preserved merits-based discretion for condonation applications pending or decided before that date. This did not create an automatic entitlement to condonation. The existing costs of Rs.50,000 were directed to be transmitted within two weeks, and the complainants could file replication within four weeks.

• CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 14 S.C.R. 503

  The Court permitted double-lane roads with paved shoulders on the Rishikesh–Mana, Rishikesh–Gangotri and Tanakpur–Pithoragarh strategic routes, modifying its earlier order to that extent. Defence infrastructure needs justified the configuration, but permission depended on implementing the High Powered Committee’s unanimous environmental safeguards. The ministries had to address slope stability, muck disposal, forests, wildlife, water, disaster risks and community concerns through studies and specific measures. A Justice A.K. Sikri-led committee would monitor these three routes and report to the Court; the existing committee retained oversight elsewhere.

• UTTAR PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. versus BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ANR.

  14/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 137

  The Court upheld the examining Commission’s response to a current-affairs question whose originally correct option became wrong after the Minister died shortly before the examination. Awarding a mark to candidates choosing that option or leaving the question unanswered, while denying it to candidates choosing options never correct, was not palpably arbitrary on these facts. The respondent had not directly challenged the Commission’s decision, and completed appointments made deletion of the question inappropriate at that stage. The Commission’s appeal was allowed and the High Court’s contrary direction set aside.

• M.R. VINODA versus M.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

  13/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 557

  The Court upheld dismissal of a belated suit challenging a family relinquishment deed executed by the eldest brother as head of his branch. The transaction settled accounts after another branch had borne substantial mortgage-redemption costs and was supported by legal necessity and benefit to the estate. A minor’s undivided interest did not itself require prior court permission under the guardianship statute. The deed was not treated as void merely because it was labelled a relinquishment. The challenge, brought decades later, was time-barred, and a new succession-based case was not permitted on appeal.

• A. MANJU versus PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R & ORS

  13/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 195

  The Court restored an election petition dismissed for failure to file an affidavit in Form 25 supporting allegations of corrupt practice. The petition already contained verification and a supporting affidavit, so absence of the prescribed form was a curable defect rather than total absence of an affidavit. The allegations extended beyond mere statutory nondisclosure, making the prescribed affidavit necessary, but the petitioner deserved an opportunity to supply it. The rejection application was dismissed, fifteen days allowed to file Form 25, and urgent continuation of the election trial directed without deciding the allegations.

• MOHAN @SRINIVAS @SEENA @TAILOR SEENA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  13/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 451

  The Court set aside life convictions imposed by the High Court after reversal of a trial acquittal in a police officer’s murder case. The trial court had carefully assessed the evidence and given sustainable reasons for doubting the principal eyewitnesses, medical documents and alleged dying declaration. The High Court failed to answer those reasons or examine the evidence comprehensively. An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; a plausible acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is available.

• N. RAGHAVENDER versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI

  13/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 57

  The Court acquitted a bank manager on benefit of doubt of criminal breach of trust, cheating, falsification of accounts and corruption charges concerning cheque withdrawals and premature closure of fixed deposits. The prosecution had not proved dishonest misappropriation or fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt; material banking records and the depositor’s evidence were missing. Strong suspicion and procedural irregularities could not replace proof. His dismissal for gross misconduct nevertheless remained effective, with no entitlement to reinstatement or further service benefits.

• BHARAT CHAUDHARY versus UNION OF INDIA

  13/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 551

  The Court restored bail to one accused and granted bail to another in an NDPS prosecution arising from tablets allegedly exported as herbal medicines. The laboratory reports left quantitative analysis unresolved, many tablets contained unregulated potency-enhancement medicines, and no tablets were recovered from the first petitioner. Unverified electronic printouts and co-accused statements did not justify cancelling his bail on the material then available. The second petitioner had spent over two years in custody and the charge sheet was filed. All findings were expressly confined to bail.

• KALLU KHAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 700

  The Court upheld the NDPS conviction arising from a chance recovery of smack beneath the seat of a motorcycle driven by the accused on a public road. The proven seizure was governed by Section 43, and Section 50’s personal-search safeguards did not govern the vehicle recovery. Credible police testimony was not disqualified by absence of independent witnesses. Non-production of the entire contraband was not fatal where seizure, intact samples and forensic proof were established. The appellant had already served the sentence and paid the fine, so no further custody direction was required.

• SHANTILATA SETHY AND ANOTHER versus M/S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR.

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 145

  The Court reversed reduction of compensation for a truck helper’s death. His employer’s undiscredited admission proved the modest monthly salary despite absence of wage receipts, which informal workers could not reasonably be expected to possess. A separate food-expense payment was excluded from wages. Compensation was fixed at Rs 2,62,164 with 12% interest from the accident, giving credit for earlier payments. The Court criticised the insurer’s prolonged litigation over the modest claim and awarded the bereaved parents Rs 1 lakh in costs.

• LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 629

  In cross-cases arising from a fatal armed clash, the Court set aside regular bail granted to three accused and rejected the rival group’s anticipatory-bail appeals. The regular-bail orders gave generic conclusions without explaining why the particular accused warranted release. The cross-case still required investigation, including weapon recovery, and it was premature to identify the aggressors or dismiss it as a counterblast. The accused could seek regular bail at an appropriate stage, and all observations were confined to the bail issues.

• STATE OF ODISHA versus PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 335

  The Court restored corruption and conspiracy proceedings against three development-authority employees accused of procuring plots for relatives at undervalued prices. The High Court had weighed disputed evidence and effectively conducted a trial while deciding quashing applications. Specific allegations and the investigation disclosed a prima facie case requiring trial, without establishing guilt. The Court also emphasised transparent, objective allocation of public property and urged doing away with discretionary quotas, generally favouring public auction while recognising properly administered class-based allotment policies.

• THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION AND OTHERS versus KINGSTON DAVID

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 733

  The Court rejected retrospective conversion of a compassionate appointment as Record Clerk into appointment as Junior Assistant. The qualified applicant had consciously accepted the available lower post and undertaken not to claim the higher post instead of waiting his seniority turn. The instruction to seek a suitable vacancy through the Collector did not authorise appointment without a vacancy. Retrospective conversion would prejudice other waiting or similarly appointed candidates. Independent promotion through the normal service channel remained unaffected.

• COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS versus HIRALAL CHANDA

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 586

  The Court set aside consumer orders requiring restoration of a housing registration and allotment at historical rates. The applicant had failed to pay seed money even after acknowledging a later demand and seeking time. His challenge to the admitted cancellation was long barred, and a later policy concerning cancellations caused by the Board’s administrative error did not revive his own-default case. The Court recorded the Board’s offer of an alternative allotment at current rates or refund under its policy.

• M/S SHETH M L VADUWALA EYE HOSPITAL versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 116

  The Court upheld the insurer’s discharge from liability for compensation arising from negligent cataract surgeries at a charitable hospital. The professional indemnity policies had been obtained by individual doctors for their own professional obligations; the hospital was not their beneficiary. Findings concerning the hospital’s untrained staff, inadequately sterilised equipment and contaminated medicines did not justify fastening joint liability on that insurer. The hospital’s liability and the patients’ withdrawals from its deposit remained effective, while any independent claim against others was left open.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus AMRITA SINHA

  11/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 602

  The Court upheld assessment of a widow’s compassionate-appointment claim using the family pension actually payable when her application was considered. A reduction scheduled after ten years did not require using the lower future pension to award merit points. Pension’s character as payment for past service did not prevent its inclusion where the governing scheme required assessment of family resources. With no palpable arbitrariness in the policy-based evaluation, the Tribunal and High Court had no basis to order reconsideration.

• MURTHY & ORS. versus C. SARADAMBAL & ORS.

  10/12/2021 · [2021] 14 S.C.R. 836

  The Court restored dismissal of a suit for letters of administration based on a disputed will. The propounders failed to dispel the cumulative doubts arising from the testator’s severe illness, inconsistent execution and custody accounts, dissimilar signatures and the document’s emergence long after his death. The attesting witness’s evidence did not resolve those doubts. The Court also held that an appellate reversal must engage with the trial court’s findings and give cogent reasons; the Division Bench had reversed without that necessary scrutiny.

• PRADEEP S/O RAJKUMAR JAIN versus MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

  10/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 592

  The Court awarded Rs 80 lakh in back wages to a finance officer whose reinstatement had been ordered after an unjustified termination. Denial merely because he had not worked during the exclusion was unsustainable. Back wages depended on the facts, including the grounds of termination and actual intervening earnings. The officer admitted some accountancy income, while the employer lacked a worthwhile basis for dismissal. The Court fixed a consolidated amount without deciding the separate pending claim to notional promotion.

• MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. versus M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED & ORS.

  10/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 404

  The Court held that captive consumers using electricity from their captive generating plants were not liable for the additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act. Their open-access right arose directly under Section 9, subject to adequate transmission capacity, rather than from permission of the State Commission of the kind contemplated by Section 42(4). Captive users also constituted a distinct class because of their generation investments. Surcharge collected under the interim stay was directed to be adjusted against future wheeling bills.

• M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 389

  The Court restored prosecution against a charge-sheeted accused after the High Court had quashed it because other alleged participants were not prosecuted. Omission of possible accomplices did not by itself invalidate proceedings supported by a prima facie case after investigation. If evidence during trial warranted proceeding against additional persons, Section 319 provided the relevant power. The restored case was to be tried on its own merits; the Court did not determine the accused’s guilt or direct that omitted persons automatically be summoned.

• THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI versus UTTAMCHAND BOHRA

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 821

  The Court upheld discharge of a private financier from a disproportionate-assets conspiracy prosecution. Custody of a company’s sale deed and attestation by his employee did not, without links to the purchase funds or an unlawful agreement, establish a prima facie case of conspiracy or abetment. The approvers’ material and recorded testimony supplied no incriminating link. Allegations in a separate bribery prosecution could not fill that gap where the present charge sheet had not adopted them. Mere suspicion did not require a trial against him.

• BHAGCHANDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 765

  The Court affirmed convictions for three family murders, concealment-related conduct and intimidation, but commuted death to life imprisonment for thirty years. Credible eyewitness evidence established guilt despite minor discrepancies and exclusion of one unreliable witness. Sentencing had focused on brutality without adequate consideration of the offender or a meaningful opportunity to present mitigation. His lack of antecedents, poor rural background and satisfactory prison conduct, together with absence of State evidence excluding reform, did not justify death.

• M/S ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 578

  The Court held that a consumer complainant could not be compelled to amend an insurance complaint after the insurer belatedly repudiated the claim. The complainant could proceed unchanged, seek amendment or withdraw with liberty to file afresh. Compulsory amendment, coupled with a new written-statement opportunity, prejudiced its ability to raise the statutory time-bar objection. Whether a defence to the existing complaint remained permissible and the legal effect of repudiation were expressly left open. Amendment or a fresh complaint would permit a timely response in accordance with law.

• GULAB versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 678

  The Court upheld a murder conviction based on common intention where the appellant arrived armed with a stick and exhorted his companion, who immediately fired the fatal shot. Consistent eyewitness accounts established participation despite the witnesses’ relationship with the deceased. Their evidence accorded with the gunshot injuries, and absence of weapon recovery or ballistic testimony did not defeat the case on these facts. Common intention could form shortly before the act; an elaborate longstanding plan or a separate injurious blow by each participant was unnecessary.

• COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE versus M/S CITI BANK N. A.

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 424

  The judges differed on separate service-tax liability for an issuing bank’s credit-card interchange fees. Joseph J considered the issuing bank a separate service provider but would permit proof that the acquiring bank had already paid the tax and reconsideration of extended limitation. Bhat J treated settlement as a unified service taxed on the full merchant discount and would dismiss the Revenue’s appeals without remand. Both rejected characterising the fee as interest or the service as merely a transaction in money. The disagreement resulted in reference to an appropriate Bench, not a final majority determination of the demands.

• ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 14 S.C.R. 863

  The Court restored interim protection for an operating steel plant while directing a decision on revised environmental clearance within three months. The plant had obtained clearance for a nearby site; the environmental consequences of relocation and forest issues required competent assessment. Exceptional regularisation in strict accordance with environmental law was not categorically barred, but clearance was neither routine nor available on demand. Proportionate treatment of a running plant did not excuse pollution or foreclose lawful action for past breaches. Insolvency-related immunity issues were left open.

• JACOB PUNNEN & ANR. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

  09/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 787

  The Court restored consumer relief against an insurer that introduced an angioplasty sub-limit when renewing a long-held health policy without informing the senior policyholders before accepting premium. The insurer’s duty of good faith required disclosure of material changes so that meaningful coverage choices remained available. Mere later dispatch of the policy or an unsupported suggestion that the agent must have explained it did not cure the omission. Both judges agreed that this was deficient service, while Joseph J separately emphasised that renewed policies could otherwise contain agreed changes.

• SRI LANKAPPA & ORS. versus KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 521

  The Court restored rejection of a fresh title suit founded on a government grant already held deemed cancelled in earlier final proceedings. Although the claimant’s own earlier suit sought only injunction, it had also defended a companion declaration suit in which its claimed title was directly decided. The new plaint disclosed that history and could not reopen the same grant-based ownership claim. Issuing summons first was not an obligatory preliminary to rejecting the barred suit. The decision did not treat every failed injunction suit as barring a later title action.

• THE DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE & ANR. ETC. versus DR. SUSMI C.T. & ANR. ETC.

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 573

  The Court set aside directions requiring additional medical-officer vacancies to be reported for appointment from an expiring Kerala ranked list. The Tribunal had assumed that higher-grade promotions created entry-level vacancies and overlooked the department’s undisputed vacancy data and excess cadre strength. Ranked-list inclusion did not create an unconditional appointment right, though arbitrary withholding of vacancies remained reviewable after considering the State’s explanation. The High Court also erred in rejecting scrutiny on laches and supposed finality despite review proceedings and the recruitment-wide implications.

• UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus GAJADHAR NATH

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 394

  The Court restored removal of a bus conductor for collecting fares without issuing tickets. After the domestic inquiry was found defective, the employer proved misconduct before the Industrial Tribunal through the inspecting officer. The material aspects of his testimony, including obstruction when he tried to record passenger statements, were unchallenged. The Tribunal’s contrary finding rested on unsupported demands for passenger particulars and an FIR. A defective inquiry did not itself compel reinstatement, and absence of criminal proceedings did not prevent proof of disciplinary misconduct.

• AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS versus ARVIND RAI AND OTHERS

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 1178

  The Court restored directions to recast junior engineers’ seniority by combined merit from one selection, rather than placing engineering streams en bloc according to when their select lists arrived. The same merit rule governed direct recruits under Rules 5 and 8(2)(a). The challenge was not defeated by delay where the erroneous method became apparent only in the later final list, or by omission of every affected employee where representative respondents were joined. Participation in recruitment did not bar a later challenge to seniority. Existing promotions remained subject to the revised list.

• SHRI K. JAYARAM & ORS. versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 359

  The Court rejected a challenge to development-authority allotments where the petitioners concealed an earlier failed suit and appeal concerning the same land. Writ relief required candid disclosure of relevant litigation, including adverse decisions. On the merits too, acquisition records covered the whole survey extent; absence of separate compensation for the disputed kharab-B portion did not establish that it was excluded. The earlier appellate finding had become final and could not be reopened through writ proceedings.

• RASMITA BISWAL & ORS. versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 433

  The Court enhanced motor-accident death compensation to Rs 31,01,000 after rejecting an unexplained appellate reduction. It accepted the proved monthly salary of Rs 15,000 and age thirty-three, applied multiplier sixteen and a 40% future-prospects addition, and retained the one-fourth personal-expense deduction used in the case. The balance over the High Court’s award was payable with 7.5% interest. The Court separately requested examination of specialised appellate tribunals as a legislative proposal; it did not establish them or replace existing appeals.

• K.S. RANGANATHA versus VITTAL SHETTY

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 652

  The Court upheld reversal of an acquittal for cheque dishonour. The complainant established the cheque transaction and attracted the statutory presumption, which the drawer could rebut on a preponderance of probabilities. His claim that signatures and cheque leaves were obtained by force was not a probable defence on this record, particularly after the same alleged incident had failed in separate criminal proceedings. Presentation within the cheque’s validity did not justify an adverse inference merely because it was not immediate. The conviction and monetary directions remained effective.

• MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS versus NARESH CHANDRA & ORS.

  08/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 668

  The Court restored an eviction order because the tenants waived objection to an allegedly defective six-month notice. They had not raised the point in their reply, written statement or statutory appeal and invoked it only in writ proceedings. Although the Court doubted the earlier ruling concerning a thirty-day demand followed by an application after six months, judicial discipline prevented deciding on that contrary view. For the exclusively non-residential premises, eviction was made subject to Rs 30,000 compensation to the tenants.

• AMUDHAVALI & ORS. versus P. RUKUMANI & ORS.

  07/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 596

  The Court declined to decide the validity or effect of a unilateral cancellation deed in writ-related proceedings while a civil suit concerning the same sale was pending and actively contested. Registration remained subject to adjudication of substantive rights by the civil court. The Court preserved the parties’ existing possession through a status-quo direction and sought expeditious disposal of the suit, preferably within one year. It did not uphold the cancellation on its merits or decide the competing purchasers’ title.

• MOHD ZAHID versus STATE THROUGH NCB

  07/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 372

  The Court refused to make two fixed-term NDPS sentences concurrent. The convictions arose from distinct heroin transactions tried separately, and the later sentencing court had given no concurrency direction. Section 427 ordinarily required the subsequent sentence to begin after the earlier term expired, while allowing judicially reasoned discretion in appropriate cases and preserving its statutory exceptions. On these serious trafficking facts the Court declined that discretion, leaving the twelve-year and fifteen-year terms consecutive.

• C. SIVASANKARAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  07/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 589

  The Court rejected a Seychelles Ambassador-at-large’s claim to diplomatic immunity from Indian proceedings. His title and diplomatic passport did not establish that he was a diplomatic agent or another covered mission official, and official communications confirmed that his presence in India was not on Seychelles’ official duty. The claimed immunity therefore could not support quashing the criminal cases. The constitutional challenge lacked the necessary pleaded and established basis. The Court also deprecated concealment of the adverse High Court judgment and filing a former Supreme Court judge’s legal opinion.

• PARVEEN @ SONU versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

  07/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 643

  The Court acquitted the appellant of involvement in an attack on a train to rescue prisoners. The eyewitnesses identified other accused, and medical evidence established the incident without connecting this appellant to it. No independent evidence proved his participation or an agreement to conspire. Alleged confessions of co-accused to police could not supply the missing proof. The High Court had reproduced the evidence without adequately analysing whether the appellant’s guilt was established.

• MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

  07/12/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1181

  The Court distinguished the mandatory 50% pre-deposit for a consumer appeal from conditions for staying the State Commission’s monetary order. The National Commission could require a higher deposit, including the full amount, as a stay condition, but had to exercise reasoned discretion rather than impose it mechanically. Because the challenged orders lacked reasons, the stay applications were restored for fresh decisions within eight weeks. Coercive steps were barred meanwhile; the statutory minimum deposit remained obligatory.

• BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus N. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

  06/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 351

  The Court held that the executing court had to implead the Bangalore Development Authority and adjudicate its objection to delivery of possession under an ejectment decree. BDA claimed title through an acquisition predating the lease on which the decree rested, and relied on acquisition and possession records. Its objection could not be rejected merely because its possession was considered unproved. The pending separate suit did not displace the executing court’s obligation to decide the relevant questions of right, title and interest.

• AKSHAY N PATEL versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

  06/12/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 231

  The Court upheld the RBI guideline linking merchanting trade transactions to goods permitted for import or export under India’s Foreign Trade Policy, as applied to PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though the goods moved between foreign countries, the transactions implicated Indian foreign exchange and could reduce global supplies available to India. Applying the four stages of proportionality, the Court found the restriction justified by public health. Regulatory expertise warranted considered deference while remaining subject to judicial review.

• MANMOHAN NANDA versus UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

  06/12/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1138

  The Court held that repudiation of an overseas mediclaim claim following a heart attack was unlawful. The insured had disclosed diabetes and supplied medical test reports before the insurer accepted the risk. Taking statins did not establish that he knowingly concealed a cardiac ailment or hyperlipidaemia. The insurer could not rely on an unanswered proposal question after accepting the proposal without clarification. It was directed to indemnify the medical expenses with interest and litigation costs.

• SATISH CHAND SURANA versus RAJ KUMAR MESHRAM

  06/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 586

  The Court set aside dismissal of a first appeal because the High Court had not decided the plaintiff’s pending application to produce additional evidence. Admission of additional evidence is discretionary and subject to the statutory conditions, but the application cannot be ignored when disposing of the appeal. The matter was remitted for fresh disposal, without granting specific performance or directing automatic admission of the documents.

• M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR. versus K.P. DWIVEDI

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1083

  The Court held that a contractor could not bring a fresh statutory arbitration reference for claims already decided by the Housing Commissioner under an unchallenged award. The contractor had sought arbitration, consented to the High Court’s reference and submitted its claims without raising a jurisdictional objection. The award and rejection of a later review had attained finality. While that award stood, identical claims could not be pursued anew before the State tribunal by treating the earlier proceedings as a nullity.

• VVF (INDIA) LIMITED versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 108

  The Court held that payments made under protest before assessment must be considered toward the statutory pre-deposit for a tax appeal. Section 26(6A) required ten per cent of the tax disputed, rather than a fresh deposit calculated on arrears after excluding earlier payments. The statute contained no exclusion for pre-assessment protest payments. The tax appeal was restored subject to verification that the required deposit had been made; the substantive assessment was not decided.

• UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MUDRIKA SINGH

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1106

  The Court restored BSF disciplinary proceedings which the High Court had invalidated. The Commandant could obtain an additional record of evidence to clarify the incident’s date under the existing rules; the 2011 amendment expressly recognising that power was clarificatory. The respondent understood the allegation and suffered no prejudice from the date correction. Under the applicable summary-court rules and binding precedent, reasons were not required for the finding of guilt or disposal of the statutory petition. The Director-General’s substituted punishment therefore stood.

• SUNIL TODI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1086

  The Court refused to quash cheque-dishonour proceedings against company directors and its managing director. A cheque initially given as security could mature for presentation when electricity was supplied, payment became due and the company failed to discharge it. Section 138 is not confined to debt already outstanding when the cheque was handed over. The Magistrate’s consideration of the complaint, affidavit and supporting material met the inquiry requirement. Sufficient averments supported proceeding against the appellants, with their defences left for trial.

• THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus PANKAJ JAGSHI GANGAR

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 307

  The Court set aside interim bail granted in a writ petition challenging MCOCA provisions. After withdrawing a bail application when the Single Judge was disinclined to grant relief, the accused obtained the same relief from a Division Bench through the constitutional challenge. The Court deprecated this forum shopping and held that the interim order improperly anticipated final exoneration without considering the serious allegations. Absence of subsequent misuse of liberty did not cure an erroneous bail order. The accused was directed to surrender forthwith.

• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT-4), MUMBAI versus M/S RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 616

  The Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its rectification jurisdiction by rehearing the merits and recalling its earlier reasoned orders. Section 254(2) permits correction of mistakes apparent from the record, rather than a fresh merits decision. Detailed participation by the Revenue could not enlarge that jurisdiction. The original tribunal orders were restored, while the assessees were permitted to pursue High Court appeals within six weeks without a limitation objection.

• ARCE POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S. ALPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1059

  The Court restored the tribunal’s order upholding a secured-asset auction. Through repeated restructuring requests, assurances and benefits obtained from deferred enforcement, the borrower had waived and was estopped from invoking the alleged failure to answer its representation. This was based on deliberate conduct, rather than mere inaction. The valuation separately covered machinery, and the successful bid exceeded fair market value. The Court left open both the alleged statutory breach and the continuing-cause-of-action limitation question.

• POOJA CERATECH PRIVATE LIMITED versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

  03/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 441

  The Court upheld forfeiture of a bidder’s security deposit under a gas-sale tender. The tender permitted forfeiture where the bidder varied or modified its bid in a manner unacceptable to ONGC during the validity period. The bidder’s communication sought a change arising from misunderstanding the price calculation, rather than correction of an arithmetical error. The Court found the tender clause applicable and dismissed the special leave petition.

• TAIJUDDIN versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

  01/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 444

  The Court acquitted the appellant of offences arising from a mob killing. The evidence reliably attributed only the act of pointing out where the victim was hiding; it did not prove that he accompanied the armed mob, carried a weapon, assaulted anyone or shared its common object. His nearby home explained his presence. A witness relied on to establish pursuit admitted that his account came from others. Constructive liability could not extend to an onlooker without proof of the requisite participation and common object.

• ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

  01/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 607

  The Court granted bail to a 74-year-old undertrial who had spent about nine and a half years in custody while the first prosecution witness’s cross-examination remained incomplete. The serious charges had to be balanced against prolonged incarceration and the unlikely timely completion of a trial involving many witnesses. Statutory bail restrictions did not extinguish constitutional protection of a speedy trial. The Court also directed attention to designation of more dedicated Special Courts and compliance with the statutory requirement for daily trial.

• PHOOL SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  01/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 317

  The Court affirmed a rape conviction and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment on the survivor’s consistent and trustworthy testimony. Corroboration is not an invariable legal requirement where that testimony inspires confidence. The unsupported consent suggestion, rejected alibi and explained delay in reporting did not undermine the prosecution. The Court found no adequate special reason under the applicable pre-amendment provision to reduce the sentence below seven years, and refused to substitute simple imprisonment.

• COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF AMTEK AUTO LIMITED THROUGH CORPORATION BANK versus DINKAR T. VENKATSUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS

  01/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 740

  The Court directed all parties and the Implementation and Monitoring Committee to complete Amtek Auto’s approved resolution plan within four weeks. Following earlier failed attempts to withdraw and prolonged litigation, the successful applicant had deposited Rs.500 crore in the corporate debtor’s account. Both sides had reciprocal obligations to perform. Further delay would defeat the Code’s time-bound resolution objective; the deposited amount was to reach the financial creditors in accordance with the plan or mutual agreement upon implementation.

• NEHA TYAGI versus LIEUTENANT COLONEL DEEPAK TYAGI

  01/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 622

  The Court left the divorce decree undisturbed under Article 142 in view of the marriage’s irretrievable breakdown, while directing the father to pay Rs.50,000 monthly for the son through the mother from December 2019. The parents’ dispute and dissolution did not extinguish the child’s right to maintenance consistent with his father’s status. The Court prescribed payment of arrears, salary deduction of current maintenance and a fallback recovery mechanism through the Army authorities.

• DR. G. SADASIVAN NAIR versus COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, & ORS.

  01/12/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 752

  The Court held that the University arbitrarily denied a retired law professor credit for prior Bar practice when it had granted that benefit to a similarly situated professor. Pension ordinarily follows the rules in force at retirement, but those rules cannot be selectively applied without a valid distinction. Both professors had joined before the restrictive proviso and retired after it. The University was directed to recompute the pension, including qualifying Bar practice, and pay the shortfall from retirement with five per cent interest.

• BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE versus ASHA JAISWAL & ORS.

  30/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1118

  The Court dismissed a medical-negligence complaint after finding that the treatment records and affidavits did not support the Commission’s conclusions against the hospital and surgeon. Death after a high-risk operation did not itself establish negligence or justify applying res ipsa loquitur. Specialists continuously monitored the patient, an alternative test followed equipment failure, and the circumstances did not establish negligent delay or abandonment. The compensation order was set aside, but Rs.5 lakh already disbursed was protected as an ex gratia payment.

• VINOD KUMAR versus AMRITPAL @ CHHOTU & ORS.

  30/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 954

  The Court restored murder convictions which the High Court had reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II. The deliberate group assault caused fractured ribs and injuries to the lung and liver sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under Section 300 thirdly, intention to inflict the particular bodily injury, rather than a further intention to kill, was material. Taking the victim to a doctor did not displace the established ingredients. The trial court’s life sentences and fines were restored.

• HASMAT ALI versus AMINA BIBI & ORS.

  29/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 42

  The Court set aside an unreasoned dismissal of a second appeal at admission. A High Court may dismiss a second appeal where no substantial question of law arises, but must explain that conclusion and demonstrate application of mind. Concurrent factual findings do not by themselves bar a second appeal raising a substantial legal defect. The matter was remitted for fresh disposal, without deciding the eviction dispute or directing admission of the second appeal.

• THE VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD.& ANR. versus SHISHIR REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ETC

  29/11/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 190

  The Court upheld the setting aside of CIDCO’s cancellation of land allotment and related permissions. The cancellation followed a predetermined inquiry, relied on technical objections already known to the authority, and failed to establish substantive illegality or public loss. The contract permitted discretionary change of use and transfer; the approved changes reflected material commercial circumstances. Public interest required evidence rather than an assertion of potentially higher revenue, particularly after the allottees had paid substantial sums and relied on official permissions.

• IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  29/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1146

  The Court directed DMRC to pursue statutory forest-clearance procedures for specified Phase IV Metro sites and Ridge areas rather than granting the requested declaration that the sites were non-forest or permitting unrestricted construction. GNCTD and the Ridge Management Board were to forward recommendations within one month of the respective applications, and the Union Ministry was to decide within three months of receipt. Independently, GNCTD and DMRC had to prepare a public-participation tree-planting and protection plan for submission within twelve weeks.

• PRADEEP S. WODEYAR versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

  29/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 985

  The Court refused to quash illegal-mining prosecutions. Direct cognizance by the MMDR Special Court without committal was irregular, but no failure of justice was demonstrated; Section 465 also applies to such pre-trial orders. The Special Court could jointly try connected IPC offences. Its consideration of the investigation material sufficiently showed application of mind despite the brief order. The authorised-complaint requirement was met, and the managing director’s statutory defences and role were matters for trial on the prima facie material.

• ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED versus UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

  26/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 532

  The Court upheld rejection of a guarantor’s civil suit challenging an assignment and possession notice under SARFAESI. Merely describing the assignment as fraudulent, without specific material particulars, did not overcome the civil-jurisdiction bar. Whether the corporate debtor’s resolution discharged the guarantor, whether any debt remained and whether the assignee was a secured creditor were matters for the DRT. The guarantor could apply there within two weeks, with those merits expressly left open.

• HARI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

  26/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1022

  The Court upheld convictions of twenty-three appellants for a caste-motivated triple killing, while acquitting Hari, Lal Singh and Girraj because identification and involvement were not proved with the required assurance. Dependable portions of a witness’s testimony remained usable despite later hostility. Prolonged participation in the murderous assembly established its common object for the convicted appellants. The State’s appeals seeking restoration of death sentences were dismissed, preserving the High Court’s commutation to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.

• SURINDER SINGH versus STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH)

  26/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1061

  The Court maintained a police officer’s attempt-to-murder conviction for deliberately aiming and firing his service pistol, though the victim diverted the shot and escaped injury. Lack of a proved motive did not defeat credible eyewitness and forensic evidence. The Arms Act conviction was set aside because unlawful use alone did not establish the required statutory contravention where possession of the weapon was authorised. On the particular mitigating circumstances and long intervening period, the Section 307 sentence was reduced to the period already served.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAM BAHADUR YADAV

  26/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 275

  The Court upheld the setting aside of an RPF Head Constable’s dismissal without inquiry. Rule 161 required valid recorded reasons establishing why an inquiry was not reasonably practicable; merely repeating the rule and alleging collusion in theft did not suffice. The authorities produced no supporting file, and a confidential inquiry undermined their claim of impracticability. Given the employee’s retirement, the Court declined a fresh inquiry and sustained pensionary benefits and fifty per cent back wages on the particular facts.

• M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

  26/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 284

  The Court protected four constructed buildings under environmental clearance obtained from the municipal authority when it was competent to grant it. Later partial invalidation of the governing notification did not justify adverse action against these structures on the facts, where appraisal defects were not alleged and substantial investment and third-party interests had arisen. Legitimate expectation supported stability and fairness in applying the changed regime. Construction of the remaining buildings, however, required fresh clearance under the applicable framework.

• STATE OF HARYANA versus HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

  25/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 520

  The Court restored concurrent findings that the asserted will was not proved. The High Court had framed a supposed substantial question by assuming due execution and then undertaken an impermissible factual reassessment in second appeal. Mechanical recitation of execution and attestation requirements could not substitute for reliable proof. The decision did not finally resolve competing succession claims against the State’s asserted escheat; the alleged heirs retained liberty to pursue an appropriate independent action.

• SHIVANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

  25/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1105

  The Court set aside restoration of granted land because proceedings to annul a pre-Act transfer were initiated after an unreasonable delay. The protective land legislation required liberal construction for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe grantees, but the then-applicable framework still required action within a reasonable time despite prescribing no limitation period. The claimant and earlier generations had left the registered transfer unchallenged for decades. The land therefore continued with the purchaser’s legal representatives.

• SALUJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY versus NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

  25/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1111

  The Court restored the portion of an arbitral award relating to the Bina project while leaving the remainder set aside. The reference and agreement concerned that project alone, so the arbitrator exceeded the reference by deciding claims under other contracts, including those of sister concerns. That excess did not justify extinguishing the authorised Bina award of Rs.5,99,158. Any withdrawn deposit exceeding that sum with eight per cent annual interest from the award to the deposit date had to be returned.

• L & T FINANCE LTD. versus PRAMOD KUMAR RANA & ANR.

  25/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 946

  The Court set aside directions requiring a finance-company director’s personal attendance and bailable warrants issued after his non-appearance. The company had consistently appeared through counsel and authorised representatives, and the complainant’s coercion allegations did not specifically implicate that director and remained untested. Warrants were unwarranted at that stage. The Commission could examine the allegations after hearing both sides and require the director’s presence later if necessary; no view on the truth of the allegations was expressed.

• AKKAMMA & ORS. versus VEMAVATHI & ORS.

  25/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1187

  The Court granted a declaration of ownership while refusing an injunction and a late amendment seeking possession. The suit as framed claimed both declaration and consequential injunction, so failure to prove possession defeated the injunction on merits rather than making the entire suit non-maintainable under Section 34. The undisturbed finding of ownership supported a declaration despite its limited executability. A later suit based on alleged subsequent interference was not barred by Order II Rule 2 merely because an earlier injunction suit had failed.

• STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BABLU @ OM PRAKASH

  24/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 450

  The Court partly reversed the acquittal of members of a group that fatally assaulted Dhanpal and injured the informant. Reliable testimony of a single eyewitness can sustain conviction; the corroboration approach in Masalti is not a mandatory witness-count rule for specifically attributed overt acts. Nevertheless, given the prior clash and the appeals against acquittal, the Court adopted an additional evidentiary safeguard on these facts, restoring six accused persons’ convictions and maintaining the remaining five acquittals.

• AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. versus ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.

  24/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 528

  Applying International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd., the Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not permit condonation of delay in an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act against a Recovery Officer’s order. The statutory scheme excludes such extension. The High Court had relied on A.R. Venugopal, which the later binding decision had expressly overruled.

• DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  24/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 506

  The Court held that Kurukshetra University’s correspondence diploma in Art and Craft did not satisfy the advertised equivalent-qualification requirement for Haryana Arts and Crafts teachers. Recognition of a course differs from recognition of its equivalence to the prescribed teacher-training qualification. The High Court could not substitute its assessment for the competent authorities’ supported technical evaluation of course content and practical training.

• UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW & ORS. versus VIJAY KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 432

  The Court preserved recovery of the employer’s proved monetary loss despite the invalidity of disciplinary action on other charges. The inquiry officer had found the loss of Rs.2,46,922.56 proved. Although the disciplinary authority’s disagreement on different charges without notice violated natural justice, that defect did not justify setting aside recovery on the charge already established by the inquiry report.

• AVNI PRAKASH versus NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) & ORS

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 891

  The Court held that a NEET candidate with dysgraphia was wrongfully denied her compensatory hour. The admission-stage disability certificate could not be demanded as a condition for examination accommodations. Rights available to persons with disabilities must not be restricted by importing the benchmark-disability threshold applicable to specified benefits such as reservation. A separate re-examination was refused, but NTA had to consider effective corrective measures and improve its instructions and staff training.

• TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED versus VISHAL GHISULAL JAIN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, SK WHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1080

  The Court dismissed insolvency-tribunal proceedings challenging termination of a facilities contract because the dispute arose from alleged service deficiencies independently of insolvency. Section 60(5)(c) does not confer jurisdiction over every contract involving a corporate debtor. An arbitration clause does not itself exclude an otherwise competent insolvency forum, but a nexus with insolvency is essential. Even where that nexus exists, restraint of termination requires the contract’s centrality to the debtor’s survival and the resolution process.

• STATE OF U.P. versus CHUNNI LAL & ORS.

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 439

  The Court set aside a direction to reconsider a claimant for appointment as Deputy Collector while protecting the appointment of the candidate already occupying the disputed post under an earlier court order. There was no vacant post, and a subsequent Commission recommendation could not justify directing two appointments to a single post. The claimant’s intervening retirement from another service post also made implementation of the impugned direction impracticable.

• PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. versus BAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS.

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 547

  The Court rejected Junior Engineers’ claim to the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer pay scales merely on completing nine and sixteen years. The stagnation-relief scheme granted the scheduled financial scales subject to its conditions, not automatic substantive promotions. Upgrading a portion of the Junior Engineer cadre without selection or changed duties did not create promotional posts, and the Board’s pay-fixing authority under its gazetted regulations did not require separate gazette publication of that office order.

• STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus SAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1105

  The Court remanded a challenge to urban-land ceiling orders because the High Court had treated repeal and unpaid compensation as sufficient to undo them without deciding whether the State had actually taken possession. Non-payment does not establish that possession remained with the owners. The disputed possession question required careful factual examination, followed, if necessary, by consideration of whether a second writ petition was maintainable after dismissal of the earlier petition and refusal of restoration.

• ANIL KUMAR SOTI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 434

  The Court enhanced compensation to Rs.15,402 per acre by applying a final award for land in the same village notified seven months later. That award relied on a 1978 sale, not an intervening sale after the present notification, and the State had accepted it by withdrawing its appeal. With no material change during the short interval identified, the comparable award justified the enhancement on these facts.

• HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 198

  The Court quashed acquisition notifications for a supplementary residential-commercial scheme because dispensing with the owners’ statutory objections inquiry was unjustified. A public purpose alone does not establish the exceptional urgency needed to eliminate that safeguard. The contemporaneous material, processing delays and declaration issued merely to avoid the one-year deadline did not justify denial of a hearing. The land was ordered returned, preserving any lawful future powers of the authorities.

• STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus NATIONAL SOUTH INDIAN RIVER INTERLINKING AGRICULTURIST ASSOCIATION

  23/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 479

  The Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s 2016 agricultural-loan waiver confined to small and marginal farmers and set aside the direction extending it to all farmers. Smaller farmers’ resource constraints and greater vulnerability supplied a rational basis for targeting relief. Policy remains reviewable for constitutional compliance, but courts do not choose its wisdom. Neither imperfect coverage nor fulfilment of an electoral promise alone made this supported welfare classification unconstitutional.

• KEWAL KRISHAN versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 588

  The Court restored a co-owner’s joint-possession decree where his attorney brother had purportedly sold the property to his own wife and minor sons without consideration. A sale requires a price paid or promised; these deeds recited payment but no payment or future-price arrangement was established. The sham deeds conveyed no title. Since the original plaints already pleaded their nullity, a later declaratory amendment did not create a limitation bar to the existing title-based claim.

• ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 237

  The Court acquitted the convicted appellants and upheld the other accused persons’ acquittals after finding deliberate suppression of substantial injuries, the pathway dispute and circumstances supporting private defence. This was not merely an imperfect investigation: the concealed material undermined the prosecution’s account of the occurrence. Private defence was possible and plausible on the evidence, and there was insufficient reliable material to find that its limits had been exceeded.

• STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 359

  The Court upheld exclusion from a Chief Engineer promotion eligibility list of officers who admittedly lacked the prescribed twenty-five years of qualifying service. The existence of a power to relax service requirements did not give them a right to relaxation. Where the competent authority consciously declined to exercise that discretion, the High Court could not compel relaxation merely because the rules permitted it or to expand the field of selection.

• GYAN PRAKASH ARYA versus M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 1

  The Court restored an original arbitral award and set aside a purported correction replacing its gold-valuation rate. The arbitrator had deliberately awarded the rate claimed in the statement of claim after considering the evidence. Substitution of a much higher rate altered the substantive award; it did not correct a computational or clerical error within Section 33. The courts below had wrongly upheld that modification.

• XXX versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1115

  The Court set aside the High Court’s suo motu recall of its detailed, contested order quashing an FIR. Section 362 permits correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, but did not authorize recall of that final order in these circumstances. The appeal concerned the power to recall, rather than a fresh examination of the FIR’s merits.

• SHRI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT versus OMPRAKASH S/O DINKAR DESHMUKH & ORS.

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1117

  The Court restored a possession decree in favour of the donee of a widow whose husband’s will had conveyed full ownership. The High Court wrongly treated the bequest as a limited estate and analysed its enlargement under Section 14 instead of addressing the first appellate court’s undisturbed finding based on the will’s terms. A separate decree under the same common appellate judgment had also become final because the defendants challenged only one of the two decrees.

• STATE OF M.P. versus GHISILAL

  22/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1178

  The Court dismissed a civil suit seeking a declaration that surplus land was freed from urban-ceiling proceedings on repeal. The statutory orders and vesting notifications had become final, and the self-contained ceiling legislation impliedly excluded a civil challenge of this kind. The finding that possession had not been taken also contradicted a possession panchnama signed by the plaintiff and the subsequent judicial report confirming public housing on the land.

• RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 502

  The Court upheld a declaration of juvenility based on an authenticated matriculation record where no contrary age evidence was produced. It distinguished the threshold inquiry into a juvenility claim from an evidentiary determination by the Juvenile Justice Board. Documentary presumptions are rebuttable and credibility remains essential, but objections to underlying admission forms did not displace the verified Board record here. Medical age testing was unnecessary on these facts.

• STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED versus GOURI DEVI

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 37

  The Court rejected a compassionate-appointment claim for an employee’s second son pursued eighteen years after the employee’s death, when the eldest son’s earlier rejection had become final. Compassionate appointment addresses immediate family hardship and is an exception to ordinary competitive recruitment. The prolonged delay defeated that object, and the Tribunal and High Court could not direct reconsideration without addressing it.

• SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. versus ASHRAF ALI & ORS.

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1009

  The Court enhanced motor-accident compensation for the death of a young engineering student to Rs.15,82,000 with seven per cent interest. His lack of established earnings did not exclude future prospects: after estimating income from his education and circumstances, a forty per cent addition was appropriate. The deceased’s age governed the multiplier. Acceptance of the existing award in execution, even described as full settlement, did not foreclose a claim for just enhanced compensation.

• VEENA PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 403

  The Court directed payment of a widow’s benefit under her husband’s pension option where he had died before the option provision was discontinued. He had accepted ninety per cent pension in return for the stipulated lump-sum benefit on death. After a decade of litigation, the Court granted relief directly on the peculiar facts, requiring adjustment of amounts already refunded. It did not decide the legality of discontinuing the provision or lay down a territorial-jurisdiction ruling.

• UNION OF INDIA versus MANRAJ ENTERPRISES

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 413

  The Court set aside pendente lite and future interest awarded contrary to the parties’ express contractual bar. Clause 16(2) separately excluded interest on amounts payable under the contract, as well as earnest money and security deposits. The broader words could not be confined to deposits through ejusdem generis. Neither an asserted concession by counsel contrary to binding law nor the employer’s own interest counterclaim created an entitlement to prohibited interest.

• ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA versus SATISH AND ANOTHER

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 955

  The Court rejected the view that sexual assault under POCSO requires skin-to-skin contact. Touching through clothing, or another act involving physical contact without penetration, falls within Section 7 when accompanied by sexual intent. It restored the convictions of two accused, imposing three years’ rigorous imprisonment on Satish and five years on Libnus for aggravated assault on a child below twelve. Justice Bhat concurred separately, emphasizing statutory context, dignity and direct as well as indirect contact.

• JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL versus CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1123

  The Court continued the stay of interim directions admitting institutions to counselling before completion of university affiliation. AICTE approval did not by itself complete the distinct affiliation process under JNTU’s regulations. Since the State had meanwhile issued its NOC, JNTU was directed to inspect and decide affiliation within ten days and report to the High Court. The order did not authorize departure from AICTE’s prescribed approval, affiliation or admission deadlines.

• NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 899

  The Court declined to restrain sale of the Union’s residual 29.54 per cent stake in Hindustan Zinc, which had already ceased to be a government company through earlier disinvestment not challenged in this petition. Separately, it directed a regular CBI case concerning the 2002 sale because the preliminary-enquiry material disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence. The earlier summary dismissal of a similar public-interest petition did not bar substantive adjudication here.

• MR. RAJEEV NOHWAR versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY MAHARASTRA STATE, PUNE & ORS

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1104

  The Court corrected the designation of the stamp authority in paragraph 32 of its judgment dated 24 September 2021. The reference to the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai was replaced with the Collector of Stamps, Pune, Rural. The order makes this textual correction and disposes of the miscellaneous application.

• THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ASHISH AWASTHI

  18/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 444

  The Court held that the applicable compassionate-appointment claim had to be assessed under the scheme prevailing when the work-charge employee died. That scheme provided monetary compensation, while the later scheme expanding appointment eligibility did not apply to the earlier death. An appointment obtained under the High Court judgment could not be protected once that judgment was set aside. The original monetary benefit remained payable if the claimant had returned it.

• PADAM NABH & SONS versus YASH PAL

  17/11/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 543

  The Court held that an NRI owner may invoke Section 13-B of the East Punjab rent legislation against a tenant inducted by a predecessor, after the statutory five-year ownership period and subject to the provision’s requirements. Nathi Devi’s interpretation of the differently framed Delhi widow-landlord provision did not govern. The eviction order was upheld, with six months to vacate upon a timely undertaking.

• VINOD KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORS versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS

  17/11/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 304

  The Court remanded a judicial-service seniority dispute because the High Court intertwined independent objections to a gradation list with a constitutional reservation ground never urged by the petitioners. Whether roster points could determine inter se seniority remained for fresh decision. The Court preserved the High Court’s administrative freedom to reconsider the list and held consequential directions for the relevant batch in abeyance pending adjudication.

• ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. versus SHANTI PARSHAD (D) BY LRS. & OTHERS

  17/11/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1162

  The Court held that Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act did not bar a civil suit challenging an eviction order founded on adjudication of a genuine dispute over the landlord-tenant relationship. The tenant claimed under a temple, while the alleged purchasers claimed through a manager found unable to convey title. A bare frivolous denial cannot paralyse the statutory authority, but summary eviction jurisdiction does not finally settle a substantial title-based dispute about that relationship.

• ACQUA BOREWELL PVT. LTD. versus SWAYAM PRABHA & OTHERS

  17/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 408

  The Court set aside an interim restraint on alienation only insofar as it affected the properties claimed by third-party appellants who had neither been impleaded nor heard. The plaintiffs themselves had pending applications describing those parties as necessary and proper. Those applications had to be decided after hearing them; if impleaded, the injunction request concerning their properties could then be reconsidered on its merits. No final title or partition issue was decided.

• GEETA MISHRA versus SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

  16/11/2021 · [2021] 12 S.C.R. 103

  The Court held that a widow could not invoke the University’s 1998 fresh-option scheme where her husband had already chosen contributory provident fund and the family had received benefits accordingly. The scheme’s reference to one more chance remained subject to Clause 5, which made family exercise of the option conditional on the employee having died before exercising it. The Single Judge’s broader reading disregarded that condition.

• THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND versus M. J. JAMES

  16/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 373

  The Court restored a bank manager’s dismissal, rejecting the claimed right to representation by an office-bearer from another bank. The Service Code confined union representation to employees of the Bank of Cochin; the manager had not requested a lawyer. His participation, failure to substantiate his defence and prolonged unexplained delay also defeated relief. Amounts released under the High Court judgment were ordered to be returned within six weeks, with interest upon default.

• MOHD. MUSTAFA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  16/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 163

  The Court upheld Dinkar Gupta’s selection as Punjab DGP and rejected challenges to UPSC’s empanelment process. The guidelines implemented Prakash Singh through assessment of service record and relevant experience within the eligible field; seniority did not compel inclusion irrespective of merit. The belated bias objection was barred by knowing participation without protest, so the Court did not further adjudicate its factual allegations. Judicial review did not permit reassessment of comparative merit.

• CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  16/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 968

  The Court restored an NGT application challenging forest clearances and allowed an appeal against a tree-felling permission disclosed only during the Supreme Court proceedings. Original environmental jurisdiction was available on these facts and had not improperly circumvented an appeal. Failure to publish the permission, coupled with an incorrect RTI response, impaired access to remedies. A short tree-felling restraint and special filing protection enabled adjudication without deciding the clearance merits.

• KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. versus SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR.

  16/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 366

  The Court enhanced compensation for the death of a seven-year-old child in a 2004 motor accident by assessing notional annual income at Rs.25,000 rather than mechanically applying Rs.15,000. Inflation, currency depreciation and living costs justified the assessment. With multiplier fifteen, filial consortium for both parents and funeral expenses, compensation became Rs.4,70,000 with six per cent interest from the claim date. The insurer remained liable to pay first, with recovery against the unlicensed driver’s vehicle owner left open.

• THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus MALANA POWER COMPANY LTD.

  15/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 937

  The Court upheld an insurance award for lost hydroelectric generation, finding no fraudulent suppression of hydrology data. The insured had disclosed the available information and the preceding policy, while the insurer had accepted similar terms with increased coverage. Cancellation followed inability to obtain reinsurance, rather than alleged fraud. Encashment of the refunded premium did not defeat a claim confined to the period when cover remained in force.

• WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REMI METALS GUJARAT LTD. versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

  13/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 120

  The Court restored an arbitral award concerning delayed supply of casing pipes to ONGC. Read with the extensions, initial waiver of liquidated damages and parties’ conduct, the tribunal’s conclusion that time was not essential and that proven actual loss governed compensation was a plausible interpretation. Courts exercising the pre-2015 arbitration review jurisdiction could not substitute another interpretation or modify the award’s costs. Saw Pipes was distinguished on the waiver circumstances.

• WAHAB UDDIN & ORS. versus KM. MEENAKSHI GAHLOT & ORS.

  13/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 291

  The Court upheld the invalidation of appointments of temporary leave-vacancy stenographers who displaced duly selected Hindi stenographers. The appellants’ English-stenographer select list had expired, they failed the required Hindi speed test, and they had not undergone the prescribed selection. Decades of continuation under interim orders did not justify protection of their unlawful appointments or an additional claim to pensionary benefits while regular selectees occupied the same sanctioned posts.

• RAMESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

  13/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 337

  The Court upheld reading down the electricity Board’s promotion regulations so that direct-recruit Assistant Accounts Officers were not required to pass SAS Part II for promotion as Accounts Officers. Their recruitment did not require that examination, and the merged cadre stood on an equal footing. Earlier litigation over their regular status explained the timing of their challenge. Existing promotees could not retain protection that would defeat reconsideration of the direct recruits from their juniors’ promotion dates.

• PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. versus M/S. RAMESH KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS.

  13/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1132

  The Court restored the rejection of a challenge to an arbitral award concerning defective wooden batons and forfeiture of a security deposit. The award contained reasons grounded in the parties’ evidence. In a Section 37 appeal, the High Court improperly reassessed the dispute as a regular civil first appeal and decreed the contractor’s claim with interest instead of examining whether the District Judge had exceeded the limits of Section 34.

• SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

  12/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 332

  The Court upheld convictions for attempted murder with common intention following dagger attacks on two injured eyewitnesses. Their testimony was consistent and supported by other witnesses. The assertion of a single blow did not warrant reduction to simple hurt: use of a deadly weapon, injuries to the chest and stomach, and the circumstances of the attack supported the requisite intention. The concurrent findings disclosed no ground for interference.

• JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC

  12/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 9

  The Court reversed quashing of criminal proceedings against four respondents accused of involvement in a land-related extortion conspiracy. The High Court had improperly required permission before submission of the police report to the Magistrate and relied on a draft charge-sheet. Specific conspiracy allegations warranted investigation, while intervention for persons not named in the FIR was premature on this record. Separate appeals concerning parties who had settled were dismissed.

• M/S B. K. ENTERPRISES versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR

  12/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 91

  The Court directed Manipur to replace prolonged interim arrangements for transporting nutrition supplies with a nationwide, transparent electronic tender. The State’s failure to invite fresh bids despite the High Court’s directions and continued reliance on old rates were strongly deprecated. Fresh notice was required within ten days, with completion within six weeks of its issue. To protect beneficiaries, the existing transportation arrangement was continued only until 31 December 2021.

• ALI AHMAD versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

  12/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 565

  The Court set aside post-conviction bail orders because the High Court had not followed the requirement to afford the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to object in writing. It remitted the applications for fresh consideration while allowing the affected convicts to remain out of custody during that exercise. In a connected appeal, the Court required independent consideration of another convict’s application instead of postponement merely because a co-convict’s bail was under challenge.

• NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER versus THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

  11/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 75

  The Court directed BPCL to surrender leased petrol-pump premises within three months and pay market rent from expiry of the lease until delivery. Binding three-judge precedent excluded tenant-protection benefits where actual possession had been given to a dealer or licensee. The High Court’s reason for relegating the owner to another remedy therefore failed. The amount of market rent was reserved for later determination on supporting submissions, and costs of Rs.1 lakh were awarded.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN

  11/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 300

  The Court restored a CRPF constable’s removal for assaulting and abusing a doctor and making false allegations to conceal his misconduct. Section 11 did not confine departmental authorities to the listed lesser punishments or require prior prosecution under Sections 9 or 10. The High Court exceeded limited judicial review by replacing removal with brief quarter-guard confinement despite upholding the charges. The gravity of the proven misconduct in a disciplined force did not justify intervention.

• M/S. NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF UP & ORS. ETC.

  11/11/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 909

  The Court upheld RERA’s application to ongoing projects, the regulatory authority’s power to order refunds with prescribed interest, delegation of complaint decisions to a single member, and the promoter’s mandatory appeal pre-deposit. Compensation and interest on compensation remained exclusively for the adjudicating officer. Refund principal with interest was recoverable under Section 40(1). Promoters were permitted to pursue statutory appeals within thirty days subject to the prescribed deposit.

• RATNAM SUDESH IYER versus JACKIE KAKUBHAI SHROFF

  10/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 97

  The Court affirmed setting aside an arbitral award that deprived a settling party of payments because of emails sent by his wife, who was not party to the settlement or arbitration and whose remarks he had not ratified. The pre-2015 Section 34 framework governed because the challenge preceded the amendment. A general contractual reference to amendments did not change that position. The award’s contractual conclusions and consequences offended the applicable fundamental-policy standard.

• THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus MAHESH AND OTHERS

  10/11/2021 · [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1123

  The Court upheld a land-acquisition award by applying the 2013 Act’s twelve-month award period from 1 January 2014 to proceedings saved under Section 24(1)(a), rather than the old two-year deadline. A stay inhibiting compensation determination extended the deadline to 20 March 2015. Alleged backdating did not establish lapse because the award was made within that extended period, but an independent inquiry into record manipulation remained open.

• THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS versus PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC.

  10/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 351

  By an interim order keeping the appeals pending, the Court replaced the Tribunal’s directions for Bihar’s sand-mining survey reports. State sub-divisional committees, rather than private consultants, were to prepare fresh reports for all districts, followed by sequential expert appraisal and approval. Pending further orders, mining through Bihar State Mining Corporation was permitted with environmental safeguards. The Court sought a balance between environmental protection and the harms associated with a complete ban on legal mining.

• BHUPESH RATHOD versus DAYASHANKAR PRASAD CHAURASIA & ANR.

  10/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 319

  The Court reversed acquittal in a cheque-dishonour case, holding that the managing director’s placement first in the complaint title did not prevent the complaint being the company’s. The annexed board resolution and supporting affidavit established authorisation. Undisputed cheque signatures attracted the unrebutted debt presumption, and no separate loan agreement was necessary on this record. The Court imposed imprisonment and a double-cheque-value fine, with conditional suspension upon an additional payment.

• IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

  08/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 51

  The Court upheld convictions arising from the rape and murder of a young child, finding a complete circumstantial chain through last-seen evidence, recovery at the accused’s instance and medical corroboration. It commuted death to life imprisonment after considering youth, poverty, lack of antecedents, satisfactory prison conduct and prospects of reform. Actual imprisonment of at least thirty years was required before premature release or remission for murder, and all sentences were made concurrent.

• NANDLAL LOHARIYA versus JAGDISH CHAND PUROHIT AND ORS.

  08/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 347

  The Court dismissed challenges to rejection of a client’s complaints against advocates after his underlying consumer cases failed on their merits. The record established no negligence in conducting those cases. Losing litigation, without negligent professional conduct, did not itself establish deficiency in service. The special leave petitions also suffered substantial delay and were dismissed both on limitation and merits, without exemplary costs.

• BIJENDER @ MANDAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

  08/11/2021 · [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1138

  The Court acquitted the appellant of robbery charges because identification and the purported recovery did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution, recovery witnesses repudiated the alleged seizure, and commonplace articles recovered about a month later lacked a reliable link to the crime. Rising crime rates and unproved apprehensions of witness intimidation could not replace proof or shift the prosecution’s burden.

• STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. versus M/S SAL UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED

  08/11/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 142

  The Court partly set aside an arbitral award directing refund of supervision charges paid on Sal-seed supplies. The arbitrator had disregarded express contractual terms and an applicable government circular authorising those charges, despite their long-standing payment without protest. This was patent illegality going to the root of the matter. The omission of a specific objection from the Section 34 petition did not bar consideration of the ground raised in the Section 37 appeal.

• BHOOPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 188

  The Court set aside bail granted on a fifth application in an alleged conspiracy to murder a witness shortly before his testimony. The High Court incorrectly stated that no overt act was attributed to the accused, overlooking call-record analysis, alleged custody of weapons and tracking of the victim. Claimed parity concerned a person not charge-sheeted, and no material change justified reversal of four previous refusals. The observations were confined to bail and did not determine guilt.

• GANESAN versus STATE REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 514

  The Court replaced the appellants’ Section 397 convictions with convictions for dacoity under Sections 391 and 395. Their participation in a robbery involving five persons was proved, but use of a deadly weapon was attributed to others and could not attract Section 397’s individual liability against them. Fewer accused being tried together did not negate dacoity. Another accused’s later acquittal on different trial evidence did not require their acquittal.

• THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS versus DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 864

  The Court restored a corruption investigation concerning allegedly overpriced medical-kit purchases under the then-applicable Jammu and Kashmir law. Written authorisation of a vigilance inspector satisfied the statutory requirements without a separate statement of special reasons. Cognizable corruption allegations permitted investigation of connected conspiracy on the same facts without prior Magistrate permission. The preliminary-enquiry provision was upheld, and neither its duration nor the asserted absence of corporate co-conspirators justified quashing.

• DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI versus JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY & ANR.

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 416

  The Court ordered reinstatement of an Assistant Professor whose university wrongly treated expiry of the Tenth Plan as ending his appointment. The appointment was regular rather than contractual, the post and department continued, and UGC-supported continuation and treatment of comparable teachers contradicted the university’s stand. Continuity was granted for pension and retirement benefits, with no salary for the non-working period and conditional notional fixation consistent with similarly situated employees.

• STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) & ANR.

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 541

  The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that much of the disputed estate was cultivated plantation excluded from private-forest vesting. The statutory land board’s determination was not res judicata under the forest statute, but carried evidentiary weight alongside contemporary surveys, accounts, tax records and testimony. The Tribunal had unreasonably discarded that material and insinuated misconduct without support. The State’s appeal was dismissed, preserving the limited forest vesting and the plantation exclusions found by the High Court.

• HARIRAM BHAMBHI versus SC/ST

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 8 S.C.R. 855

  The Court set aside bail granted in an atrocities prosecution without prior notice and hearing to the victim’s representative. The statutory rights under Section 15A(3) and (5) were mandatory; hearing a later cancellation application did not cure the original breach. The bail order also lacked reasons addressing the offence’s gravity, the accused’s role and investigation material. Surrender was directed, with observations confined to bail rather than the trial’s merits.

• SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR & ORS.

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 468

  The Court quashed preventive detention under the National Security Act and its extensions because the State unjustifiably delayed deciding the detenu’s representation and neither government proved timely communication of its rejection. Government consideration was independent of Advisory Board review and could not await that process. The Court decided the appeal on these procedural safeguards, leaving other challenges to the detention and the underlying allegations unexamined.

• DAYLE DE’SOUZA versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) AND ANOTHER

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 511

  The Court quashed Minimum Wages Act proceedings against a company director and its State head. The complaint neither alleged the statutory basis of their personal vicarious liability nor arraigned the company as an accused. A director’s title alone did not establish responsibility, and the statutory due-diligence defence did not reverse the prosecution’s initial burden. The Court also stressed responsible prosecution and judicial scrutiny before issuing process, without deciding the disputed worksite-compliance merits.

• A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 91

  The Court remitted two customs appeals for fresh High Court decisions because a common judgment used evidence from only one of the separate trials to convict both sets of accused. Identical witnesses and documents did not make the trial records interchangeable: cross-examination, individual roles and exhibit numbering differed. Each appeal required independent consideration of its own evidence, subject to statutory exceptions. Guilt and other factual and legal questions remained open; one deceased appellant’s appeal had abated.

• INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus SUNITA

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 180

  The Court rejected an additional accidental-death benefit where the accident occurred while the life policy was lapsed for unpaid premium. Payment and revival after the accident, though before death, did not retrospectively restore accident cover under the policy’s express condition. Failure to disclose the intervening accident also breached the insured’s duty of good faith. The basic life assurance already paid was distinguished from the separate accident benefit.

• MAHENDRA K C versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

  29/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 582

  The Court restored investigation into alleged abetment of a driver’s suicide after the High Court prematurely assessed the truth of his complaint and suicide note. Specific allegations of financial dealings, withheld salary and death threats disclosed a prima facie case requiring investigation. The High Court could not demand corroboration after itself staying investigation or rely on assumptions about how a distressed person should behave. The decision rejected quashing without determining guilt.

• RASHID WALI BEG versus FARID PINDARI & ORS.

  28/10/2021 · [2021] 13 S.C.R. 1

  The Court held that the pleaded suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction over admitted waqf property belonged before the Waqf Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 83 was not confined to disputes about whether property was waqf property or whether a waqf was Shia or Sunni. The plaintiff’s disputed status as a beneficiary also required determination by the Tribunal. The High Court judgment permitting the civil suit was set aside, with return of the plaint for presentation to the Tribunal rather than final rejection of the claim.

• YATIN NARENDRA OZA versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

  28/10/2021 · [2021] 8 S.C.R. 849

  Exercising Article 142, the Court temporarily restored Yatin Narendra Oza’s senior-advocate designation for two years from 1 January 2022 as a final opportunity to demonstrate appropriate conduct. It found little ground to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s withdrawal decision and accepted that no real fundamental-right infringement was shown. Continued or permanent restoration remained for the High Court to decide, and misconduct during the two-year period could lead to withdrawal of the indulgence.

• SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

  28/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 116

  The Court restored cheque-dishonour complaints where cheques described as security were presented after the agreed loan-repayment period expired. Security cheques could mature for payment when the debt became due and remained unpaid; the description alone did not defeat Section 138. Repayment or altered arrangements remained trial defences. The separate cheating allegation failed because dishonour and non-repayment did not establish dishonest intention in the circumstances. The restored proceedings were confined to Section 138.

• G H RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  28/10/2021 · [2021] 5 S.C.R. 1142

  The Court issued nationwide directions to secure adequate qualified special educators for children with disabilities in general and special schools. It required notification of appropriate pupil–teacher norms, creation of permanent posts, and regular recruitment within the prescribed deadline, with interim arrangements to address shortages. State Commissioners were directed to monitor compliance. The petitions remained pending, and the Court expressly left the represented teachers’ working conditions undecided.

• UNION OF INDIA versus BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. & ORS.

  28/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 825

  The Court rejected a taxpayer’s request to revise its July–September 2017 GSTR-3B returns to substitute unused input tax credit for cash already paid. Under the statutory scheme then applicable, errors were rectifiable in the return for the period when noticed. GSTR-3B was a return under Section 39, and the challenged circular correctly reflected that mechanism. Non-operation of GSTR-2A did not relieve the taxpayer of self-assessment from its own records. The High Court’s permission to revise the earlier returns was set aside.

• THWAHA FASAL versus UNION OF INDIA

  28/10/2021 · [2021] 8 S.C.R. 797

  The Court restored Thwaha Fasal’s bail and upheld bail granted to Allen Shuaib in the UAPA prosecution. Taking the charge-sheet material as presented, it found no reasonable grounds to regard the accusations under Sections 38 and 39 as prima facie true: association or support alone did not establish the required intention to further a terrorist organisation’s activities. Section 43D(5) did not govern the separate Section 13 allegation. All findings were confined to bail and left framing of charges and trial unaffected.

• MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA versus DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI & ORS.

  27/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 545

  The Court restored the Tenancy Tribunal’s order recognising the cultivating tenant’s purchase rights. An alleged oral surrender could not terminate tenancy without the prescribed notice, inquiry and acceptance by the Special Officer. The recorded compromise expressly continued the tenancy, and the respondents failed to establish lawful termination. Documentary evidence also supported the tenant’s part-payment towards purchase; the landlady’s explanation that it represented rent arrears did not justify reversing the Tribunal.

• K.V. ANIL MITHRA & ANR. versus SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ANR.

  27/10/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 297

  The Court held that irregular recruitment did not deprive these daily-wage university employees of retrenchment protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their qualifying continuous service and the failure to comply with Section 25F were undisputed. The earlier decision upholding de-regularisation remained final, but had left the retrenchment issue open. Considering the short period of service and circumstances, the Court substituted Rs.2,50,000 compensation for each appellant for the Tribunal’s reinstatement-related relief and 50% back wages.

• MANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  27/10/2021 · [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1066

  The Court appointed an independent three-member technical committee, overseen by former Supreme Court judge R.V. Raveendran, to investigate alleged Pegasus surveillance. The supporting material and the Union’s insufficiently specific response justified further inquiry, without establishing that the alleged surveillance had occurred or who was responsible. National-security concerns required substantiation and did not automatically exclude judicial review. The committee was also tasked with recommending safeguards; the petitions remained pending.

• XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS

  27/10/2021 · [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1096

  On the parties’ broad consensus, the Court arranged a further Rs.5 crore deposit and permitted specified withdrawals while the DRT decided the disputed debt-discharge appeal. The share attachment continued, but further recovery proceedings were stayed pending the DRT’s time-bound decision. Withdrawals remained subject to the appeal’s outcome, with refund of any excess if ordered in the appellant’s favour. The Court left legal questions open and did not decide whether the debt had been discharged.

• ANANT RAJ LTD. (FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD.) versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

  27/10/2021 · [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1021

  The Court upheld cancellation of group-housing licences granted through Haryana’s asserted first-come-first-served practice. The governing instruments did not disclose that selection method or establish the claimed consistent practice. With a limited sector-area allocation, applicants needed a fair and transparent opportunity, even where development concerned privately owned land. The unsuccessful writ petitioners likewise could not demand consideration under the invalid method. Pending applications could be considered under the 2017 policy in accordance with law.

• JITHENDRAN versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

  27/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 147

  The Court enhanced compensation for a young accident victim whose certified 69% permanent disability had entirely destroyed his earning capacity. Economic loss required assessment of actual functional consequences rather than mechanical adoption of the medical percentage. The award also had to account realistically for attendant care, recurring treatment and lost earnings during hospitalisation. The four revised heads totalled Rs.27,67,800, payable within six weeks after adjustment of amounts already paid under those heads.

• SUGHAR SINGH versus HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 287

  The Court restored a decree for specific performance, holding that the purchaser’s pleadings and conduct established readiness and willingness. Section 16(c) required substantive compliance rather than ritual wording, and the High Court lacked grounds to reverse the non-perverse concurrent findings in second appeal. Refusal of relief under the former discretionary regime also lacked sound reasons on these facts, particularly given the subsequent purchasers’ knowledge of the agreement. Execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession were directed within four weeks.

• P.B. NAYAK & ORS. versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHILAI STEEL PLANT & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 432

  The Court upheld the conclusion that the Steel Club was a genuine non-residential club exempt from the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. Its catering facilities served members and permitted guests alongside actual sporting, social and cultural activities; they did not convert the premises into a restaurant or eating house used wholly or principally for that business. With no lodging facility shown, the statutory exemption applied and the employees could not obtain Section 58 relief under that Act.

• DR. U. N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS. versus ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 484

  The Court set aside findings of civil contempt against the surviving agricultural-marketing officials. Wilful disobedience required proof beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no material establishing their knowledge of or collusion in subordinates’ alleged acts. The High Court had also used contempt proceedings to decide factual disputes it had earlier reserved for a designated committee. The ruling resolved contempt liability rather than the underlying traders’ individual cess disputes; proceedings against the deceased first appellant had already abated.

• V. ANANTHA RAJU & ANR versus T.M. NARASIMHAN & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 860

  The Court recognised the two plaintiffs’ combined 50% partnership share under the admitted 1995 reconstitution deed, rejecting the claim that its express shares were recorded by mistake. The party alleging mistake bore the burden of proving it; the later deed omitted the earlier capital-contribution contingency and its allocation reflected a coherent negotiated arrangement. The plaintiffs’ expulsion from 18 June 2004 was nevertheless upheld under an earlier contractual clause that remained operative. The accounting directions were otherwise maintained.

• MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATIONNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 11 S.C.R. 321

  The Court directed equal rehabilitation treatment for 318 former mill workers who had vacated their quarters, compared with 134 similarly placed former workers allotted free 200-square-yard plots. Compliance with eviction notices was not a rational basis for denying the welfare benefit while rewarding continued unauthorised occupation. The constitutional equality claim was enforceable by mandamus against State instrumentalities. The Single Judge’s relief was restored, and the allotment exercise was directed to be completed within six months.

• SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYA versus ANAND ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 460

  The Court restored criminal proceedings alleging assault and caste-based abuse by police officers. The amended Section 14 empowered Special Courts to take direct cognizance but did not exclude a Magistrate’s cognizance followed by committal. The High Court also overlooked the complainant’s prompt attempts to initiate proceedings. Whether the alleged second incident bore the necessary connection with official duties for Section 197 sanction was debatable and did not justify quashing at that stage. Trial before the competent Special Court was directed.

• CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. versus UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANR.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 8 S.C.R. 780

  The Court upheld invalidation of nine employees’ transfers from Dewas to Chopanki. The evidence supported findings of victimisation, reduction of the Dewas workforce and a consequential change from workman duties to supervisory work without the required notice of change. This concerned the transfers’ proved effects, rather than a rule that every transfer required Section 9A notice. The workers were awarded consequential salary and retirement benefits as if they had continued at Dewas, together with individual costs.

• MITESH KUMAR J. SHA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 8 S.C.R. 875

  The Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a developer–landowner dispute over sales allegedly exceeding the developer’s share. On the particular agreements and course of dealings, the necessary dishonest or fraudulent intention was not prima facie shown. Civil litigation or arbitration did not itself bar criminal prosecution, but neither could an alleged contractual breach supply missing offence ingredients. The Court did not decide the unresolved civil entitlement to the disputed flats.

• SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  26/10/2021 · [2021] 8 S.C.R. 835

  The Court approved initial appointment or continuous officiation as the basis for combined all-India seniority of MES employees selected independently by different Commands where no contrary rule governed. Merit placement could govern candidates from one selection, but the cited memorandum did not resolve consolidation of separate selections. Although the contrary Punjab and Haryana judgment was set aside, two employees’ revised status was exceptionally protected under Article 142 because of intervening promotions and retirement circumstances.

• RAMAWATAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  25/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 499

  Exercising Article 142 in a pending criminal appeal, the Court quashed proceedings following a voluntary settlement in a decades-old dispute between neighbours. Although conviction arose under the SC/ST Act, the particular incident was predominantly rooted in a property dispute, and quashing would not undermine the statute’s protective objective. The Court stressed heightened scrutiny for coercion and rejected any general entitlement to settle special-statute offences. It also confined post-conviction compromise relief to matters where appellate proceedings remained pending.

• N. JAYASREE & ORS. versus CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

  25/10/2021 · [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1001

  The Court enhanced fatal-accident compensation to Rs.85,81,815 with 7.5% interest. The deceased’s mother-in-law, who lived with him and depended on him for shelter and maintenance, qualified as a legal representative for the claim. Counting four dependants justified a one-fourth personal-expense deduction. The High Court’s split multiplier and unsupported income reduction were rejected; the Court used proved after-tax salary, 15% future prospects and multiplier 11, with the specified conventional-head awards.

• STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MAHENDRA ALIAS GOLU

  25/10/2021 · [2021] 10 S.C.R. 133

  The Court restored the trial court’s conviction for attempted rape of two children under the IPC provisions applicable to the 2005 incident. The proved conduct had moved beyond preparation into deliberate acts reasonably proximate to completion of the offence. The victims’ reliable testimony was not undermined by a minor exaggeration in another child witness’s account. The High Court’s substitution of a Section 354 conviction was reversed, and the accused was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.