Daily Supreme Court reporting that explains what the Court held, why it matters, and where each judgment sits in Indian law.
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside High Court orders directing BSNL to consider officiating Rajbhasha Adhikaris under the pre-2005 promotion rules.
Justices Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta set aside a Karnataka High Court decree in a partition suit, holding the first appellate court ignored the evidence on record.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar upheld the transfer of a motor accident claim, holding Section 166(2) cannot be read beyond its plain language.
Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside murder convictions from 2004, holding the chain of circumstances had substantial gaps and two views were possible.
Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the State's appeal, holding recoveries made three days after arrest looked stage-managed and the key witness was untrustworthy.
Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale set aside that part of a High Court order, holding appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 belongs exclusively to the Court.
Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that a settlement order is revisited only through Section 245D(6) and not by a fresh reassessment notice.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh acquitted a Railway Protection Force officer in both CBI prosecutions, holding approver evidence needed corroboration from someone outside the transaction.
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside a ten-year sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, holding the presumption falls away once the prosecution case is found empty.
Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held the repossession and sale violated Articles 14 and 21, ordered compensation and costs, and directed the RBI to secure compliance.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules and sent fifteen regulatory suggestions to every High Court and Chief Secretary.
Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe upheld interest running until release of a conditional deposit, and asked the Law Commission to examine how courts hold such money.
Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan resolved a conflict among six High Courts, holding a civil court cannot pass preservatory orders while a leave application under Section 92 is pending.
Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that the 2008 Entitlement Rules substantially reproduce the 1982 scheme, and dismissed a batch of 271 appeals on delay and on merits.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar quash a cheating prosecution against two steel traders, holding that the complainant's own police statement shows the dispute is pre-eminently civil — and that he never filed the suit he should have.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu dismiss eight appeals by engineering college teachers whose Academic Grade Pay was withdrawn — and hold on the way that two of the three decisions the celebrated five-category framework rests on were Article 142 relief, not binding precedent.
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar set aside a Division Bench ruling that three years' experience must be earned after the qualification, holding that the advertisement never said so and that the court had expanded the dispute beyond what was brought before it.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu direct the Meerut Development Authority to deposit the entire enhanced compensation within four weeks, release 8.33 per cent to the landowners, and record regret that a priority request made in April went unheeded.
Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Shree Chandrashekhar modify a 2006 Madras High Court judgment, holding that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 and that an executive order under Article 162 can supplement the rules but cannot operate against them.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta acquit a man sentenced to ten years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, holding that neither medical jurist could be read in evidence because the defence was never given an effective chance to cross-examine, and that the last-seen theory was a material improvement absent from the FIR.
Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria hold that "personal law" in Section 51(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a general reference, so Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act enlarged Khajano's life estate and her holding devolves under Section 53 — to her own sons, not to the heirs of the last male proprietor.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's reversal, holding the burden of proving a valid seizure lay on the prosecution and it failed.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta used Articles 32 and 142 to set a timetable on pharmaceutical marketing, while declining to write the policy themselves.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held the clean slate principle protects the successful resolution applicant, but allowed a set-off to keep the arbitration equitable.
