Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court judgments of 2022

100 judgments with AI-generated headnotes, newest first.

• NEDUMPILLI FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

  10/05/2022 · [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1005

  The Court held that the Kerala and Gujarat money-lending enactments did not apply to NBFCs registered under the RBI Act and regulated by RBI. Chapter III-B constituted a comprehensive regulatory code with overriding effect. RBI’s choice to leave interest rates largely to market forces did not create a gap for State regulation. The Kerala appeals succeeded and Gujarat’s appeals failed.

• UNIVERSITY OF DELHI versus SMT. SHASHI KIRAN & ORS. ETC.

  10/05/2022 · [2022] 7 S.C.R. 957

  The Court upheld pension coverage for Delhi University employees whose CPF options were submitted only after the prescribed cutoff. It also upheld an opportunity for the Shashi Kiran petitioners, who had timely chosen CPF, to switch to pension because comparable employees had repeatedly received that opportunity without a rational basis for excluding them. The employer’s CPF contribution had to be recouped with 8% simple interest.

• SURESH MAHAJAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

  10/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 813

  By an interim order, the Court directed notification of overdue local-body elections within two weeks, without waiting for delimitation or incomplete OBC reservation formalities. The constitutional election timetable could not be postponed on those grounds. OBC reservation required complete triple-test compliance; the constitutional challenge to the State amendments remained pending with the related Maharashtra matters.

• M/S ARAVALI POWER CO PVT LTD versus VEDPRAKASH AND ANOTHER

  10/05/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 753

  The Court set aside NGT orders and the environmental compensation they imposed because the subsequent fly-ash notification of 31 December 2021 fundamentally changed the governing framework and timelines. It directed the Ministry to examine whether further safeguards were needed and implement the prescribed monitoring and enforcement machinery. The notification’s legal validity was expressly left open to challenge.

• MIHAN INDIA LTD. versus GMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS

  09/05/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 523

  The Court upheld quashing of the annulment of the Nagpur airport bidding process. Under the particular RFP, the accepted and acknowledged award letter created a concluded contract; the general pre-acceptance annulment clause could not then be invoked. The asserted financial and approval objections did not justify the arbitrary reversal. Public-law review was available despite the contractual setting.

• KISHOR GHANSHYAMSA PARALIKAR (DEAD) versus BALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN MANGRUL (NATH) AND ANR.

  09/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 553

  The Court upheld extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration under a compromise decree for specific performance. The decree court retained control and could extend time to prevent manifest injustice. The purchaser had deposited the balance about five days late with permission, and the vendor then executed the sale deed. The High Court’s cancellation was set aside.

• NIMS UNIVERSITY versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  09/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 584

  The Court declined to lower the qualifying percentile for NEET Super Specialty admissions for 2021-22. The considered decision to preserve standards was an academic-policy choice supported by relevant reasons, despite vacant seats. The petition was disposed of on the Union’s assurance that mop-up counselling, including stray vacancies, would proceed while retaining the fiftieth-percentile eligibility threshold.

• DILIP HARIRAMANI versus BANK OF BARODA

  09/05/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 615

  The Court acquitted a non-signatory partner convicted for dishonour of the firm’s cheques. Neither partnership status nor a loan guarantee established the statutory conditions for vicarious criminal liability. The prosecution had not proved responsibility for the firm’s business, and the firm itself had not been prosecuted. The judgment left the non-appealing signatory partner’s case untouched.

• V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASH versus M/S. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU & SONS’ CHARITIES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE & ORS.

  09/05/2022 · [2022] 18 S.C.R. 948

  The Court restored the appellant’s entitlement to hereditary founder trusteeship. The scheme’s residence requirement had to be read contextually to secure effective participation in trust affairs, rather than as continuous physical presence or an exclusion of a person holding a US Green Card. The appellant’s residence evidence satisfied the requirement. The later appointment from another branch was annulled.

• BHOLA KUMHAR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

  09/05/2022 · [2022] 7 S.C.R. 1176

  The Court awarded Rs.7.5 lakh compensation for imprisonment beyond the legally permissible term after the High Court reduced the sentence. Jail authorities failed to give effect to the appellate judgment and omitted undisputed earned remission from their explanation. The State was vicariously liable and was directed to have recourse against the erring officers. The underlying conviction and sentence were not reopened.

• SATHYANATH & ANR. versus SAROJAMANI

  06/05/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 46

  In a suit seeking ownership, invalidation of an earlier decree and an injunction, the High Court directed the trial court to try res judicata as a preliminary issue. The Court set aside that direction and required findings on all issues. It explained the limited discretion to try pure issues of jurisdiction or statutory bar first, distinguishing cases in which res judicata could be resolved without disputed facts.

• SAMARPAN VARISHTHA JAN PARISAR & ORS. versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.

  06/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 625

  Residents admitted to an old age home under its rules occupied as licensees, without an interest in the property. Their entitlement to remain depended on observing the licence conditions and allowing peaceful coexistence. The Court rejected their application for an ad-interim injunction against removal, while requiring the operator to arrange an alternative home and directing legal-services visits and assistance.

• DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD AND ORS.

  06/05/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1193

  The Court reversed a declaration that an old land acquisition had lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Earlier challenges had concluded, possession had been taken and compensation paid or deposited. A subsequent purchaser could neither revive those proceedings nor obtain the benefit of relief confined to other landowners. Its voluntary deposit did not undo the acquisition and was ordered refunded without interest.

• DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. versus PAWAN KUMAR & ORS.

  06/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 791

  A purchaser who acquired land after the acquisition notifications, award and rejection of the original owner’s challenge obtained a High Court declaration of lapse. The Court reversed that declaration, applying the same-day Godfrey Phillips judgment on a subsequent purchaser’s standing and Indore Development Authority on compensation and lapse. The purchaser’s writ petition was dismissed.

• MUZAFFAR HUSAIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

  06/05/2022 · [2022] 7 S.C.R. 939

  A retired judicial officer challenged disciplinary findings concerning land-acquisition compensation awards and the withholding of pension. The High Court had excluded three charges and reduced withholding from 90% to 70%. The Court dismissed his appeal: the remaining findings rested on evidence of undue favour and corrupt motive, rather than mere judicial error, and no procedural illegality was alleged.

• COX AND KINGS LIMITED versus SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER

  06/05/2022 · [2022] 15 S.C.R. 182

  In an arbitrator-appointment petition seeking to bind a non-signatory group company, the Court referred the legal basis and scope of the group-of-companies doctrine to a larger Bench. The lead opinion doubted Chloro Controls and its subsequent expansion. Surya Kant J. agreed with referral but favoured retaining a properly defined doctrine and proposed additional questions. The non-signatory’s liability was not finally decided.

• J. SEKAR @SEKAR REDDY versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 698

  The appellant sought quashing of a money-laundering prosecution after the main scheduled-offence investigation was closed, two related FIRs were quashed, the Income Tax Department explained the seized currency’s source and tax treatment, and attachment was not confirmed. Considering that combined record and the absence of incriminating material despite years of investigation, the Court set aside the High Court’s refusal and quashed the ECIR and complaint.

• MS. P versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 823

  The complainant challenged regular bail granted to an accused facing allegations of repeated rape and intimidation. The Court found that the High Court had relied on delay in lodging the FIR while overlooking relevant statements and criminal antecedents. It also considered the accused’s celebratory publicity after release as giving rise to a reasonable fear of influence and an unfair trial. Bail was cancelled, with the merits reserved for trial.

• SWADESH KUMAR AGARWAL versus DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL & ORS, ETC., ETC.

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 7 S.C.R. 901

  Parties had mutually appointed a sole arbitrator in a family-property dispute. While applications alleging undue delay were pending before the competent court, the High Court terminated his mandate and appointed another under section 11(6). The Court set aside that intervention and revived the section 14 applications for determination on merits. It separately upheld rejection of the attempt to dismiss those applications under Order VII Rule 11.

• ABDUL MATIN MALLICK versus SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND ORS.

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 611

  Co-sharers obtained pre-emption of their sisters’ sale to a stranger, although they had not deposited the full stated consideration plus 10% with their application. Applying Barasat Eye Hospital, the Court held the initial deposit mandatory and a prerequisite to inquiry. Neither their belief that the stated price was excessive nor the High Court’s permission for a later balance deposit cured the defect. Their application was dismissed.

• RITU MAHESHWARI versus M/S. PROMOTIONAL CLUB

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 597

  A club sought consideration for industrial plots under a NOIDA scheme whose closure it had not challenged. The High Court revived its applications and later objected in contempt to their consideration under the prevailing scheme. The Court set aside those orders: registration did not confer a right to allotment under a closed scheme, and the club also failed to disclose a subsequent plot allotment during its writ proceedings.

• BHAG SINGH ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 144

  Landowners sought compensation above Rs.4 lakh per acre for land in Sohana acquired under the 26 October 1990 notification. The Court upheld reliance on a final award for Lakhnaur land acquired by the same notification. The proposed comparators involved a village not adjoining Sohana, an award under appeal, or a later acquisition affected by intervening development. The appeals were dismissed.

• DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 716

  In execution of the Delhi Airport Metro arbitral award, the concessionaire sought post-award interest on termination payment plus pre-award interest, relying on Hyder Consulting. The Court rejected that computation because the parties’ specific interest agreement governed the award. It upheld the executing court’s rejection of the claim and distinguished Hyder Consulting, where no contrary interest agreement had been considered.

• STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus SHYAMA NANDAN MISHRA

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1136

  The State disputed the entitlement of +2 lecturers recruited under Advertisement No. 1/87 to membership of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service and the consequent merger benefits. The Court upheld the High Court’s relief, finding that the creation notification, recruitment advertisement and subsequent treatment outweighed the ex-cadre description in appointment letters. Their exclusion was discriminatory, exceeded the statutory basis of the 2009 notification and frustrated legitimate expectations.

• REDDY VEERANA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

  05/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 663

  NOIDA had transferred privately owned land to a developer before formally acquiring it, despite an injunction. In further compensation litigation, the Court upheld the binding circle-rate basis of Rs.1,10,000 per square metre, removed the High Court’s 50% development deduction and added 3% penal interest for the constitutional wrong. Compensation under the 2013 Act was refused because an award existed when that Act commenced.

• ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED versus S. P. VELAYUTHAM & ORS

  04/05/2022 · [2022] 17 S.C.R. 637

  An asset reconstruction company challenged registration of a sale by an attorney whose cited power did not authorize sale and prohibited encumbrance without written consent. The Court restored the Single Judge’s cancellation of registration. It distinguished review of a registering officer’s failure to perform statutory duties from civil adjudication of execution and title, and emphasized the applicable Tamil Nadu provisions and rules.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ASHISH AGARWAL

  04/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 638

  High Courts had quashed reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 under the superseded income-tax provisions. The Court agreed that the new regime applied, but used Article 142 to treat the impugned notices as show-cause notices under section 148A(b). It prescribed disclosure and reply steps, granted a one-time dispensation of the preliminary inquiry requirement and preserved statutory defences, including limitation. The directions applied across India.

• RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU versus STATE OF PUNJAB

  04/05/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 589

  The High Court had acquitted two accused but retained the appellant’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of two children on circumstantial evidence. The Court found the alleged motive speculative and the last-seen and recovery evidence contradictory. The call records also lacked the required electronic-evidence certificate. It acquitted the appellant and rejected the State’s challenges to the other acquittals.

• THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS versus JAMES VARGHESE AND OTHERS

  04/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 389

  Kerala legislation cancelled arbitration clauses for specified government contracts, revoked arbitrators’ authority and reopened challenges to awards. The Court rejected the High Court’s conclusion that Kerala lacked legislative competence: the subject was arbitration in the Concurrent List and Presidential assent addressed repugnancy. Nevertheless, it upheld invalidation because the Act annulled awards and court judgments and decrees, encroaching on judicial power.

• THOMAS DANIEL versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 606

  A retired teacher challenged recovery of increments paid because the employer had mistakenly treated a period of leave as qualifying service under the Kerala Service Rules. The Court found no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee and held the long-delayed recovery inequitable. It set aside the recovery decisions and the High Court judgments sustaining them.

• PAWAN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 7 S.C.R. 928

  An RPF constable recruit was discharged for failing to disclose an earlier prosecution in his attestation form. The criminal case arose after his original recruitment application and ended in a clean acquittal. Applying Avtar Singh, the Court held that the employer had mechanically treated nondisclosure as sufficient without assessing the trivial allegations, acquittal, duties and suitability. It ordered reinstatement with notional benefits but no salary arrears for the period not served.

• NARSINGH ISPAT LTD versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 151

  An insurer rejected a factory-damage claim arising from an armed mob attack by invoking the policy’s terrorism exclusion. The Court held that the insurer had not established the political, religious, ideological or similar purpose required by the contractual definition. It restored the complaint for determination of quantum, directed a provisional deposit of Rs.89 lakh and left withdrawal to the Commission’s decision.

• UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD versus LEVIS STRAUSS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 10 S.C.R. 231

  After a warehouse fire, the insured sought payment under its domestic fire policy despite recovery under its parent’s global stock-throughput cover. The Court held that the global cover was a marine policy extending to warehouse risks, activating the domestic policy’s exclusion. No mandatory local-insurance requirement displaced that result. The policies did not support separating manufacturing loss from profit as claimed, and the recovery already exceeded the loss claimed domestically.

• JACOB PULIYEL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 471

  A public-interest petition challenged COVID-19 vaccination mandates, trial-data disclosure, adverse-event reporting and vaccination of children. The Court upheld the expert-led vaccination policy and regulatory approvals while recognising bodily autonomy. On the evidence and conditions then prevailing, restrictions on unvaccinated persons’ access to public places and services were disproportionate and called for review. It directed improved public reporting of suspected adverse events and timely disclosure of required trial results, protecting privacy.

• ARAVINTH R.A. versus THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 921

  A prospective overseas medical student challenged the 2021 foreign-graduate licentiate and compulsory internship requirements as beyond the National Medical Commission’s powers and constitutionally unreasonable. The Court upheld the challenged minimum course duration, overseas and Indian internships, overseas registration and internship-placement provisions. It distinguished recognition of existing qualifications from conditions for future registration in India, dismissed the appeals and waived the High Court’s costs against the student.

• NEPPALI SAI VIKASH & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

  02/05/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 591

  Applicants sought a further five-percentile reduction in NEET-PG 2021 qualifying thresholds after the government had already lowered them by fifteen percentile points. Taking account of counselling results, the availability of eligible candidates, educational standards and the delayed academic session, the Court found no manifest arbitrariness in refusing another reduction and dismissed the application.

• ATBIR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

  29/04/2022 · [2022] 8 S.C.R. 1166

  A prisoner whose death sentence had been commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without parole or remission was denied furlough on that basis. Construing the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and the presidential order, the Court held that remission was not a prerequisite for consideration of furlough. It set aside the blanket denial and remitted the application for a fresh assessment under all applicable eligibility and public-interest conditions, including those governing multiple-murder convicts.

• OMKAR SINHA & ANR versus SAHADAT KHAN & ORS

  29/04/2022 · [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1029

  Forest guards who topped their training challenged a judgment denying the benefit of a 1977 order permitting further training without an entrance examination. The Court held that the 2009 communications had not validly withdrawn that order; express revocation followed only in June 2012. It also stressed that the Division Bench had relied on a withdrawal case the writ petitioners had not pleaded. The appeals were allowed and the impugned judgments set aside.

• WAQF BOARD, RAJASTHAN versus JINDAL SAW LIMITED & ORS

  29/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 803

  The Rajasthan Waqf Board challenged permission to remove a dilapidated structure in land leased for mining, claiming that it was a notified mosque. The Court found that the Board’s records located the mosque in another survey number and did not establish dedication or religious use of the disputed structure. It dismissed the appeals while preserving the State lessor’s power to act under the lease on sufficient grounds after observing natural justice.

• THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION versus POOJA THANDU NARESH & ORS.

  29/04/2022 · [2022] 17 S.C.R. 344

  Foreign medical graduates whose physical clinical training was interrupted by the pandemic sought provisional registration after receiving degrees and passing the screening examination. The Court held that those steps did not establish completion of required practical training and rejected the High Court’s substitution of two extra internship months. To protect both educational standards and affected students, it directed the National Medical Commission to frame a one-time scheme for actual clinical training, with testing before provisional registration and the regular internship.

• UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MUKESH KUMAR MEENA

  28/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121

  An ST employee who had passed the departmental Income Tax Inspector examination at the applicable relaxed threshold sought two grace marks to meet the general-category threshold and obtain promotion against general vacancies. The Court held that the CBDT policy aided candidates marginally failing the examination and did not authorise additional marks for someone who had already passed in his category. It restored the Tribunal’s dismissal of his claim.

• MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (EAST-I) versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ORS.

  28/04/2022 · [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1045

  MTNL challenged municipal notices taking additional open setback land for a road junction, invoking the statutory requirement of government sanction and objecting to the street line and unpaid compensation for an earlier surrender. The Court upheld the notices: MTNL owned the land as an incorporated company and was not a corporation constituted by statute. It dismissed the appeal but directed timely processing and payment of compensation lawfully due for the earlier surrender on a timely application.

• BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. versus SANDEEP CHOUDHARY & ORS.

  28/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1002

  A wait-listed OBC candidate challenged BSNL’s allocation of higher-merit OBC candidates to reserved posts despite their entitlement to open-category seats after a general reduction of qualifying marks. The Court upheld his claim to the resulting reserved vacancy. Exercising Article 142, it protected two long-serving open-category appointees from removal while directing the claimant’s appointment with seniority linked to the relevant original appointments.

• NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL versus MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED

  27/04/2022 · [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1072

  NDMC challenged appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the corporate debtor’s Section 11(6) application was time-barred. The Court held that Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code excluded the entire period of the Section 14 moratorium when computing limitation for a suit or application by the corporate debtor, even though the moratorium did not prohibit that debtor from initiating proceedings. The appeal was dismissed; the separate question whether consent to appointment barred the limitation objection was left undecided.

• RAMJHAN GANI PALANI versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY AND ANR

  27/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1050

  A fishing-boat operator sought regular bail in a prosecution concerning attempted maritime heroin smuggling and alleged terrorist financing. He disputed the inference from his boat’s presence and response to a radio call, explaining that his crew had been fishing for a valuable species. The Court found sufficient prima facie material to decline interference with the refusal of bail at that stage, expressly reserving all merits and trial defences.

• OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. versus M/S DISCOVERY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  27/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 926

  ONGC sought to join a non-signatory group company to arbitration over a vessel contract. The tribunal excluded it while deferring ONGC’s application for discovery of evidence relevant to group-company involvement. The Court held that this procedure shut out potentially vital evidence and failed to examine the doctrine’s factual and legal foundation. It ordered a fresh jurisdiction decision by a newly constituted tribunal, preserving the separate award against the signatory and postponing related appeals pending the fresh proceedings.

• RANBIR SINGH versus SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ANR.

  27/04/2022 · [2022] 10 S.C.R. 986

  Applications sought implementation of earlier directions concerning absorption of LIC’s temporary, badli and part-time workers. The Court found serious defects in the Dogra verification report and conflicts between the 2015 decision and earlier binding decisions and schemes. Balancing finality, equal opportunity in public recruitment and decades of litigation, it used Article 142 to direct fresh verification for the specified 1985–1991 cohort and compensation at Rs.50,000 per year of service or part thereof in full settlement, in place of absorption.

• SHRADDHA GUPTA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

  26/04/2022 · [2022] 17 S.C.R. 622

  An accused sought quashing of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act on the ground that only one underlying criminal case had been registered against her. The Court held that the Act did not require multiple offences or charge sheets. A single case could support prosecution if the statutory requirements of gang membership and the specified anti-social activity and purpose were met. Allegations of participation in a murder conspiracy for pecuniary gain justified refusal to quash; the appeals were dismissed.

• AKHILESH PRASAD versus JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

  26/04/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 400

  An ST employee appointed in undivided Bihar and allocated to Jharkhand was denied reserved-category consideration in a limited departmental examination for Deputy Collector because his caste certificate came from present-day Bihar. The Court held that statutory protection following reorganisation preserved his service-related reservation benefit and that the examination was a promotional channel. It restored the direction to consider his candidature. A concurring opinion added reasons concerning involuntary displacement; wider questions about employees’ children were left open.

• RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

  26/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 989

  An accused sought quashing of cheque-dishonour process, asserting that post-dated cheques were security for a share buyback and could be presented only after share transfer. The Court held that these disputed factual defences did not justify terminating the complaint before evidence, particularly where the cheque and signature were admitted and the statutory presumption supported the complainant. It dismissed the appeals while preserving a fair trial, rebuttal of the presumption and independent determination of the merits.

• SMT. KAITHUAMI [L] THROUGH L.RS. versus SMT. RALLIANI AND OTHERS

  26/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 978

  A family inheritance dispute under Mizo customary law concerned competing claims through a deceased son and a divorced daughter who returned to care for her widowed mother. The Court upheld the District Council Court’s division between that daughter and an unmarried granddaughter in the male line. It held that customary inheritance involved responsibilities towards elders and equitable distribution, and set aside the High Court’s ruling excluding the daughter.

• ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. (INDIA) LTD. versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

  26/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1095

  An asset reconstruction company paid concessional conveyance duty on a bank’s debt-assignment agreement. Revenue then demanded additional duty by treating the draft power of attorney in its schedule as a separate taxable instrument. The Court held that the schedule was incidental to the single assignment instrument and that sale rights flowed from statute. Having charged the assignment under the correct entry, Revenue could not split it to negate the notification’s concession. The additional demand was set aside.

• KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS versus THE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

  26/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 849

  Farmers sought compensation for land used by a local body to construct and widen a public road. The Municipality asserted a voluntary, gratuitous surrender but produced no evidence of it. The Court held that the burden of proving that assertion lay on the Municipality and that public purpose did not excuse uncompensated deprivation without authority of law. It restored the Single Judge’s directions for valuation and payment, with liberty to challenge the amount in a civil court.

• HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS versus EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION (ECGC) LIMITED

  25/04/2022 · [2022] 17 S.C.R. 297

  ECGC denied an exporter’s buyer-default insurance claim because loading began a day before policy coverage, relying on an onboard date and DGFT guidelines. Reading the policy as a whole and considering the insured risk, the Court rejected that interpretation. Despatch required completed handing over, and the relevant bill-of-lading date fell within coverage; the guideline alternative also did not support denial without the stipulated letter of credit. The complaint was allowed with payment of Rs.1,96,38,400 and 9% annual interest.

• DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.

  25/04/2022 · [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1164

  Landowners obtained a declaration that an old acquisition had lapsed despite interim orders obtained by them preventing possession. Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court reversed the lapse finding. Subsequent highway-acquisition notifications issued while the appeal was pending did not create a right to compensation under the later regime where the lands were excluded from the final highway award. In the peculiar circumstances, the owners received a fresh opportunity to seek enhanced compensation under the 1894 Act.

• MANIBEN MAGANBHAI BHARIYA versus DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DAHOD & ORS.

  25/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 760

  Anganwadi workers and helpers challenged denial of gratuity on the grounds that their work was honorary and they were not statutory employees. In agreeing opinions, the Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act applied: the centres were covered establishments, the workers performed substantial statutory duties, and the honorarium was wages. It restored the Single Judge’s decision and directed Gujarat authorities to extend benefits to eligible workers within three months, with 10% simple annual interest on overdue gratuity.

• ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

  22/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1023

  Two appellants challenged their convictions for causing hurt with firearms under Section 324 IPC and using arms under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court accepted the core eyewitness account, supported by medical evidence of firearm injuries, and rejected the alibi and reliance on minor discrepancies. It affirmed the High Court’s convictions and sentences and dismissed both appeals.

• JAFARUDHEEN & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA

  22/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 721

  In appeals arising from a politically motivated killing, the Court distinguished accused whose convictions were concurrent from four whose trial acquittals the High Court had reversed. It sustained the convictions of accused 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 on the accepted eyewitness and supporting evidence. For accused 10–13, identification deficiencies, delayed statements and doubtful recoveries supported the trial court’s reasonable view. Their acquittals were restored.

• RAM CHANDER versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

  22/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1103

  A life convict sought premature release after his remission request met an adverse judicial opinion merely referring to the offence. The Court held that remission decisions are reviewable for arbitrariness and that the mandatory judicial consultation must produce adequate reasons addressing the relevant remission factors. It directed a fresh opinion within one month of receipt of its order and a fresh State decision within one month thereafter, without itself granting release.

• THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

  22/04/2022 · [2022] 10 S.C.R. 465

  Maharashtra challenged the quashing of MPID Act notifications attaching assets of NSEL’s parent company following defaults in exchange transactions. Examining the exchange’s settlement, guarantee-fund and warehouse arrangements, the Court held that NSEL accepted deposits and was a financial establishment under the Act. It upheld the impugned attachment notifications, distinguished the earlier compulsory-amalgamation judgment and rejected reopening the settled constitutional challenge.

• IMRAN versus MR. MOHAMMED BHAVA & ANR

  22/04/2022 · [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1093

  The complainant challenged anticipatory bail and regular bail granted to two accused in an alleged group assault and murder. The Court held that the High Court had overlooked eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical and forensic material indicating their participation. A superior court may set aside a legally untenable bail order for ignoring relevant material without requiring subsequent misconduct alone. Both bail orders were set aside and surrender directed within two weeks; the observations were confined to bail.

• DALPAT SINGH NARUKA & ANR. versus KARUNA BANSAL & ORS.

  21/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 139

  While hearing an arbitration appeal against refusal of interim relief over a hotel partnership dispute, the High Court called for a criminal case diary, summoned the investigating officer and transferred the investigation. The Supreme Court held that those directions exceeded Section 37 jurisdiction. It set aside the three challenged orders and required the appeal to be decided within its statutory scope, expressly preserving the earlier restraint against alienation of the hotel property.

• DR. JACOB THUDIPARA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

  21/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 68

  A teacher in a fully government-aided private institution sought retirement-age parity and monetary benefits after the precedent denying retirement at 65 had been overturned. The Court held that he could not be singled out from similarly situated teachers who received consequential benefits. Because he had been prevented from serving, the no-work-no-pay defence failed on these facts. Arrears were directed within six weeks, with interest excluded for the specified period of delay in appealing.

• M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. versus SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR

  21/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 678

  Indian Oil challenged reinstatement of an employee dismissed after admitting that he submitted a forged school certificate. The Court held that the misconduct seriously impaired the employer’s trust even if the certificate was unnecessary for the post. The unproved assurance of leniency and benefit-of-doubt criminal acquittal did not justify interference. Finding no reasoned basis to regard dismissal as shockingly disproportionate, it restored the disciplinary penalty.

• DEVENDER SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  21/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1037

  The High Court reversed the acquittal of a husband, his brother and his mother in a dowry-death prosecution. The Supreme Court upheld the husband’s conviction: reliable evidence established dowry-related cruelty soon before an unnatural death within months of marriage, and the statutory presumption was not rebutted. It gave the separately residing brother and mother the benefit of doubt because specific participation in demand, cruelty or conspiracy was not proved. The appeal was partly allowed.

• RAMVEER UPADHYAY & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 336

  The petitioners sought quashing of a complaint alleging caste abuse and attempted abduction, invoking political rivalry and a jurisdictional objection to cognizance. The Court rejected the objection by applying Shantaben and held that possible political motivation did not warrant quashing allegations disclosing an offence and supported by recorded statements. Truth remained for trial. It dismissed the special leave petition, while leaving the trial court to consider a medical-ground application for exemption from personal appearance.

• STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. ETC.ETC versus SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN ETC.ETC.

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 343

  Odisha challenged orders reinstating Hindi teachers as regular government teachers following takeover of aided schools. The Court held that management appointments made outside the statutory selection process and sanctioned staffing could not sustain the relief. The recruitment rules applied to the aided institutions even though the particular posts were not grant-funded. The Tribunal had also ignored earlier contrary rulings, and the High Court proceeded on material factual errors. The reinstatement orders were set aside and the teachers’ applications dismissed.

• SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS versus UNION OF INDIA

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 17 S.C.R. 614

  Landowners challenged review orders recalling their enhanced compensation awards because the precedent supporting them had been remanded. Before review was allowed, however, the precedent case had already been decided afresh and the challenge to that decision dismissed. The Court held that the sole factual basis for review no longer existed. It restored the landowners’ 2001 appellate judgment and directed payment of the compensation and available statutory benefits within twelve weeks.

• DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI & ORS. versus DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI & ORS.

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 812

  The family of a patient who died after a successful kidney transplant alleged negligent post-operative treatment and follow-up. The Court upheld dismissal of their consumer complaint: the record and specialist evidence did not establish a departure from reasonably competent care. Death despite treatment did not itself prove negligence. It also rejected the claim that the later hospital required transplant registration merely to provide post-discharge care. The appeal was dismissed.

• ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1106

  An SSB Head Constable challenged removal for entering the women’s barracks after midnight, relying on the lesser penalty imposed on the sentry who admitted him. The Court held that their roles and misconduct were not equivalent and that penalty review could not rest on that comparison alone. The established breach compromised barracks security and justified removal in a disciplined force. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Division Bench’s restoration of the penalty intact.

• U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER versus RAM SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 853

  The housing authority challenged restoration of a notification withdrawing land from acquisition. The State had cancelled that notification by relying on a later government order reallocating withdrawal decisions to administrative departments. The Court held that the later order operated prospectively and did not justify undoing the earlier withdrawal. The beneficiary had been afforded an opportunity to respond, and its arguments did not establish grounds for interference. The appeals were dismissed, preserving lawful fresh acquisition.

• THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus GITASHREE DUTTA (DEY)

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1061

  A candidate recommended for a fair-price-shop dealership challenged cancellation of the notified vacancies before any appointment order. The Court upheld West Bengal’s decision to align the distribution system with the National Food Security Act. Her recommendation created no vested appointment right, and legitimate expectation could not defeat the justified statutory reform. The State’s appeal was allowed and the Single Judge’s dismissal of the challenge restored.

• HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED versus SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 107

  Hyundai challenged consumer-forum relief after front airbags failed to deploy in a serious collision causing injuries. The Court declined to disturb the concurrent defect findings based on the accident’s nature and photographs, holding expert evidence unnecessary on these facts. Limitation ran from discovery of the latent safety defect in the accident. Replacement and monetary relief, partly punitive, fell within Section 14 of the 1986 Act despite the absence of a specific replacement prayer. The appeal was dismissed.

• SHANKAR LAL versus HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS

  20/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 704

  Hindustan Copper computed a miner’s voluntary-retirement benefits using a 1945 birth date in Form B, departing from the 1949 date maintained in his service book and subsequent records. The Court rejected the employer’s unilateral late alteration without hearing and its unexplained mistake theory. Form B had high probative value but was not conclusive. It ordered computation using 21 September 1949, payment of the difference within four months and 7% simple interest from retirement to actual payment.

• MS.Y versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 27

  The prosecutrix challenged a cryptic order granting bail to her uncle in a prosecution alleging repeated sexual misconduct and rape. The Court held that the High Court had failed to address the serious allegations, criminal antecedents and potential familial influence over her. General assertions that facts and circumstances had been considered did not supply reasons. It set aside the bail order, cancelled the bonds and directed surrender within one week of receipt, failing which arrest was required.

• UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus M/S. WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 14 S.C.R. 1138

  The Union challenged 9% interest awarded on delayed integrated-tax refunds to exporters. The Court held that these claims fell under the principal part of Section 56 CGST Act, attracting 6%, rather than its proviso concerning refunds consequent on final adjudicatory orders. Delays of 94–290 days did not justify importing the exceptional relief in Sandvik Asia. The appeals were allowed to reduce interest to 6%; as that interest and the refunds had already been paid, no further action was required.

• UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus M. DURAISAMY

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 51

  The Union challenged substitution of compulsory retirement for removal of a postal employee who admitted fraudulent withdrawals and non-credit of depositors’ money. The Court held that repayment after detection and a long previously unpunished career did not justify sympathetic interference with the reasoned penalty for serious breach of public trust. No procedural defect had been found. It set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders and restored removal.

• INDRAJEET YADAV versus SANTOSH SINGH AND ANR.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 73

  The High Court announced acquittal in murder appeals but supplied its reasoned judgment almost five months later. Applying the settled requirement of prompt reasoned decisions, the Court set aside the judgment without examining guilt and remanded for fresh disposal, preferably within six months of receipt. The accused were to remain on bail meanwhile, subject to the appeal outcome, and surrender within two weeks if their convictions were sustained.

• STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. versus MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 79

  Uttarakhand challenged a Tribunal direction concerning an officer’s promotion assessment. The High Court disposed of the challenge by ordering compliance with the Tribunal decision, without considering the State’s grounds. The Supreme Court held that this failed to exercise the required judicial review and give reasons. It set aside the order and remanded the writ petition for fresh decision, expressly reserving the merits of the promotion dispute.

• VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 556

  Four accused challenged robbery convictions founded on police statements, alleged jewellery and weapon recoveries, and a chart of other gang cases. The Court excluded the confessional material beyond lawful discovery evidence and held the crucial recoveries insufficiently proved. The unsupported case chart could not establish guilt or justify sentence. The remaining circumstances did not complete the chain. All appellants were acquitted on benefit of doubt and ordered released unless required in another case.

• VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1080

  A teacher-recruitment candidate ranked 34th sought the vacancy left when one of the 33 finally selected candidates failed to attend counselling. The Court held that the governing rules expressly prohibited a waiting list and required unfilled posts to be carried forward. Replacement during provisional certificate verification was distinct from filling a vacancy after final selection. The candidate had no right to appointment, and his appeal was dismissed.

• SUNIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS versus SUNDARESH BHATT AND OTHERS

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 17 S.C.R. 318

  ABG Shipyard workers and employees sought priority payment of wages during insolvency resolution and protection of retirement funds. The Court held that CIRP-period wages qualify as resolution costs only upon proof that the business operated as a going concern and the claimants actually worked. It directed independent liquidation-stage adjudication within twelve weeks and preservation of the earmarked amount. Provident, pension and gratuity funds remained outside the liquidation estate and distributable from the available respective funds.

• RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE versus MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 149

  Bhoyar landowners sought increased compensation for land acquired for an industrial estate. The Court approved the same-village sale exemplar and location-based differences, rejecting automatic parity with neighbouring-village plots or valuation by intended industrial use. On the facts it increased the annual cumulative escalation from 10% to 12% and enhanced the applicable compensation bands, with corresponding uncultivable-land rates. The appeals were partly allowed, subject to specified interest exclusions for delayed appeals.

• MOHD. FIROZ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 19 S.C.R. 168

  The Court upheld convictions for kidnapping, rape and murder of a young child on a complete circumstantial chain, including last-seen evidence, medical findings, DNA-linked hair and subsequent conduct. It rejected the unsupported unfair-trial objection. On sentence, it commuted death under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment and imposed twenty years under Section 376A, with other convictions and sentences affirmed and all punishments concurrent. The appeal was allowed only to that extent.

• ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 692

  Two Delhi judicial officers and the Delhi High Court sought modification of qualifying service for promotion through the limited departmental competitive examination. Given Delhi’s identical functions for junior- and senior-division Civil Judges and the resulting frustration of the merit-promotion route, the Court permitted eligibility on seven years comprising five junior-division and two senior-division years, or ten years as a junior-division Civil Judge. The modification applied only to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

• EVERGREEN LAND MARK PVT. LTD versus JOHN TINSON & COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ANR

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 879

  A restaurant-bar lessee challenged an interim direction to secure all rent for March 2020–December 2021 despite its unresolved contractual force-majeure defence. The Court modified the deposit order to exclude the two periods of complete lockdown within that span, while requiring the balance. It did not decide whether rent was ultimately payable for the excluded periods. The force-majeure issue and all contentions remained for arbitration, to be concluded preferably within nine months subject to cooperation.

• M/S TIRUPATI STEELS versus M/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT & ANR.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 356

  An award creditor challenged permission to proceed with a Section 34 challenge without the MSMED Act’s 75% pre-deposit. Applying binding precedent, the Court held the deposit mandatory, while recognising that undue hardship may justify instalments. It overruled the contrary High Court view to that extent, set aside the waiver and required the debtor to deposit before the challenge could be entertained on merits. In default, execution could continue.

• V G JAGDISHAN versus M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 61

  A driver employed, working and terminated at Ghaziabad sought to litigate in Delhi after moving there and sending a demand notice to the employer’s Delhi head office. The Court held that these later circumstances did not create part of the cause of action in Delhi. Ghaziabad alone had territorial jurisdiction on the undisputed facts. The Labour Court could decide that jurisdictional question first as a preliminary issue. The appeal was dismissed.

• K.C. LAXMANA versus K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 40

  A donee challenged a decree granting a coparcener partition and invalidating his father’s gift of ancestral property to a person outside the family. The Court held that Article 109’s twelve-year period, running from the donee’s possession, governed the challenge rather than Article 58’s general declaration period. The suit was timely. Love and affection for a person brought up by the donor did not make this gift a permissible pious-purpose disposition. The appeal was dismissed.

• BALRAM GARG versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 888

  PC Jeweller’s managing director and related traders challenged SEBI findings of communication and use of unpublished price-sensitive buy-back information. The Court held that the family relationship and trading pattern did not establish access or communication on the record. The traders were not connected persons on the findings, the estrangement evidence had been wrongly rejected, and SEBI retained the burden of proving possession. Both challenged orders were set aside and deposits ordered refunded.

• NEMAI CHANDRA DEY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus PRASANTA CHANDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

  19/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1076

  In a contested suit challenging two registered gift deeds, the first appellate court affirmed the decree through a conclusory order without reassessing the evidence or giving findings. The High Court then treated the result as concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that the valuable first-appeal right had not been honoured. It set aside the impugned judgments and remanded to the first appellate court for a reasoned rehearing, expressly reserving the deeds’ merits.

• JAGJEET SINGH & ORS versus ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR.

  18/04/2022 · [2022] 4 S.C.R. 536

  Victims’ relatives challenged bail granted to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri prosecution. The Court held that victims have an independent right to an effective hearing and that the High Court had denied it while relying on irrelevant considerations and prematurely assessing merits. It cancelled bail, required surrender within a week and remitted the application for fresh consideration, preferably within three months. It reserved guilt and the accused’s right to seek bail on proper grounds.

• STATE BANK OF INDIA versus KRISHIDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED

  18/04/2022 · [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1155

  SBI’s insolvency application had been rejected as time-barred on the premise that acknowledgement could not extend limitation after the recorded default. Applying subsequent binding decisions, the Court held Section 18 of the Limitation Act applicable and recognised that qualifying balance-sheet acknowledgements could renew limitation. It did not decide whether SBI’s particular documents established timeliness. The orders were set aside and the application restored for fresh NCLT adjudication within three months, with factual contentions open.

• HARISH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

  13/04/2022 · [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1065

  Five Ayurvedic teachers challenged termination following takeover-screening findings that they lacked experience when first privately appointed. The Court held that the governing notification required qualifications and teaching skills to be assessed on 1 June 1986, when all five qualified. It set aside the adverse decisions, directed reinstatement of the still-serving-age teacher and continuity for the four retired teachers. Notional and retirement benefits were granted, but salary for periods not worked was expressly excluded.

• INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

  13/04/2022 · [2022] 3 S.C.R. 323

  Candidates holding degrees in particular branches of history challenged cancellation of their selection for postgraduate and graduate trained history teaching posts. The Court held that the advertisements required the prescribed qualification in History as a whole. It upheld the rejection following document verification and consideration by experts, declining to substitute judicial views on academic equivalence. All appeals were dismissed without costs.

• KAMATCHI versus LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

  13/04/2022 · [2022] 5 S.C.R. 629

  A wife challenged quashing of her domestic-violence application as filed more than one year after the alleged incidents. The Court held that an application under Section 12 seeks statutory relief and does not initiate prosecution for an offence. Section 468 CrPC therefore did not impose the one-year filing bar applied by the High Court. The husband’s quashing petition was dismissed and proceedings before the Magistrate restored, with the factual merits expressly left open.

• DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR.

  12/04/2022 · [2022] 13 S.C.R. 635

  The Dental Council challenged a judgment invalidating the requirement that a proposed dental college attach itself to a recognised medical college. The Court held that the Dentists Act empowered the Council to prescribe additional relevant factors and that the requirement rationally served teaching and training standards. The distinction between existing and new colleges was valid, and the right to establish an institution permitted such academic regulation. The Council’s appeal was allowed and the institution’s writ petition dismissed.

• ASHUTOSH KUMAR versus THE FILM AND TELEVISION INSTITUTE OF INDIA & ANR.

  12/04/2022 · [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1094

  A colour-blind applicant challenged exclusion from FTII’s film-editing diploma. Adopting its expert committee’s majority recommendations, the Court required admission eligibility across FTII courses with reasonable curriculum accommodation, including exclusion of the obstructive colour-grading module or making it elective. Similar institutes were also to adhere to the conclusions. The appellant’s renewed request for individual admission relief remained pending for the institute’s response.

• SANJAY GUPTA & ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS

  12/04/2022 · [2022] 15 S.C.R. 137

  Victims of the 2006 Meerut exhibition fire sought constitutional compensation. The Court upheld the Court Commissioner’s findings of negligence and the allocation of liability at 60% to the organisers and 40% to the State. The organisers could not shift their responsibility for paying visitors’ safety to their contractor. Individual compensation remained to be assessed; a judicial officer at Meerut was to calculate just compensation and report to the Court, which retained the proceedings.

• SHANKARLAL NADANI versus SOHANLAL JAIN

  12/04/2022 · [2022] 13 S.C.R. 841

  Tenants resisted possession decrees because the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was extended to the premises after the suits were filed but before decree. The Court held that Section 18 did not withdraw jurisdiction over previously instituted suits or prohibit their decrees from being executed. The civil court could therefore decide those suits under the law applicable at institution. Both appeals were dismissed and the decrees sustained.