| Name of the Case | Issues Involved | Ratio Decidendi |
| Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi ( Rani ) M/S S. R. Engineering Construction Vs Union of India & Ors. | The question for consideration is whether the time for filing a Section 17 application commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the existence of the award? | It was held that the date of receiving a copy of the award is not the requirement of Section 14(2), but merely awareness that it is available to the parties. This holding signifies that the parties have to take steps to scrutinise the award themselves as soon as it becomes accessible and they are aware of its accessibility. |
| Urmila Dixit vs Sunil Sharan Dixit | Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Tribunal, granting benefit of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to the Appellant? | Placing reliance on the beneficial interpretation of the legislation the Court held that the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee. |
| Serosoft solutions Pvt Ltd vs Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt Ltd | Whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent /claimant one more opportunity to cross examine appellant/ respondentās witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer? | The SC held that due to lack of any proper justification given by HC in exercise of its powers under Article 227 by interfering with the directions of Arbitral Tribunal in restraining any further cross examination after providing sufficient opportunity, the impugned order of HC shall be set aside. |
| Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr | Whether a person exonerated in a police closure report or not named in chargesheet be summoned later by trial court to face trial? | The SC for the case in hand upheld the order of HC and ruled that a person not named in chargesheet or exonerated in a police closure report could be summoned later by trial court to face trial only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a him. Meanwhile, the apex court has also cautioned the trial courts that power under Section 319 CrPC should not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. |
| M/S Naresh Potteries Vs M/s Aarti Industries & Anr | Whether the appellant herein filed complaint under section 138 NI Act is in accordance with the requirement under section 142 of the NI Act? | HC has passed an impugned judgement and order on a completely perfunctory and erroneous reasoning which depicts absence of careful consideration. Thus HC having inherent powers under section 482 CrPC should use it with great caution and therefore avoid any interference with the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to scuttle a fair investigation or prosecution. |
| Bharat Aambale vs The State of Chhatisgarh | Whether the conviction could be said to have stood vitiated because of the non-compliance of section 52A of the NDPS Act? | The Supreme Court thus held that what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. |
| M/S Vidyavati Construction Company Vs Union of India | Whether appointment of arbitrator made in contravention of agreement be challenged at a stage later after filing of statement of defence, where the party knows the defect and still participates in the proceedings of the tribunal? | The SC underlining the principle of section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 held that a party is said to waive off his right to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator when he has knowledge of such a defect and still continues to participate in proceedings of the tribunal. |
| Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das Vs Union of India | Age determination of Criminal undertrials and whether overlooking juvenility would amount to violation of constitutional provisions of Article 14 and 21? | The Supreme court after discovering the juvenility of the accused overturned a life sentence and thereby held that procedural lapses involving non determination of juvenility of the accused violates article 14 and 21 of the constitution and also stressed that plea of juvenility could be raised at any stage of the proceedings under section 9 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 |
| State of Uttar Pradesh Vs RK Pandey | Whether an ex parte award based out of invalid arbitration agreement be executed? Whether Unilateral appointment of Arbitrator Valid for conduct of arbitral proceedings? | The SC set aside both of the ex parte arbitral award as they were pronounced by unilaterally appointed arbitrator based upon non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement between parties which is in contrary to provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. |
| My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs M/S Faridabad Implements Pvt Ltd | Do the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to Section 34 proceedings, and to what extent? Does Section 4 of the Limitation Act apply to Section 34(3) as per an analysis of the statutory scheme as well as Precedents of this Court on the issue? If Section 4 applies, does it apply only to the 3-month limitation period or also the 30-day condonable period? In light of the answer in (ii), will Section 10 of the GCA apply to Section 34(3), and if so, in what manner? | The SC held that the purpose of reading the Limitation Act alongside the ACA is not to restrict the special remedy under the ACA, but to enable exercise of such remedy in circumstances as contemplated under the Limitation Act. In this context, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act becomes relevant as it incorporates Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in special statutes, including the ACA, to the extent that its provisions are not expressly excluded. It will be wrong to confine the period of limitation to just 3 months by interpreting it as the āprescribed periodā and excluding the balance 30 days under the proviso to Section 34(3) as not being the prescribed period through a process of interpretation. Since Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the ACA, the applicability of Section 10 of the GCA stands excluded in view of the express wording of its proviso that excludes the applicability of the provision when the Limitation Act applies. |
| Frank Vitus Vs Narcotics Contol Bureau and Ors | Whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (for short āthe Rulesā) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 Whether the imposition of condition of dropping a pin on google map for bail upon the accused relevant under section 437(3) CrPC in light of āinterests for Justiceā or it violates the fundamental rights of the accused as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Whether to grant bail under NDPS Act to an accused who is a foreign national a condition to obtain a ācertificate of assuranceā from the Embassy/ High Commission necessarily be imposed upon such an accused? | The SC issued direction that while granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the State or prosecuting agency, as the case may be, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the Civil Authorities With regards to the condition of dropping a pin on google map for bail upon accused, the apex court held that no conditions which track constant movement of the accused could be imposed under section 437(3) of the CrPC as it necessarily violates the fundamental rights of accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The SC held that it is not necessary that in every case where bail is granted to an accused in an NDPS case who is a foreign national on the ground of long incarceration of more than 50% of minimum sentence, the condition of obtaining a ācertificate of assuranceā from the Embassy/High Commission should be incorporated. |
| Sunkari Tirumala Rao & ors vs Penki Aruna Kumari | Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm could not have filed the Suit for recovery of money, being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 | The SC for the case in hand upheld the view of the High Court that a suit of such nature could not be said to be maintainable in the absence of the registration of the partnership firm as expressly mentioned under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 |
| The State Of Punjab Vs Hari Kesh | Whether the High Court could have set aside the impugned Sanction Order and the proceedings arising therefrom, more particularly, when the trial had already commenced and the prosecution had examined seven witnesses ? | The SC expressing no personal opinion on said question held that in view of the settled legal position, the High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity |
| NBCC (India) Ltd Vs The state of West Bengal and Ors | Whether an MSME cannot make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18 of the MSMED Act if it is not registered under Section 8 of the Act before the execution of the contract with the buyer? | The Apex Court held that that filing of a memorandum under section 8 is mandatory for initiation of proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act |
| Rajeeb Kalita Vs Union of India | Public Interest litigation for seeking directions to all States and UT for ensuring availability of basic toilet facilities in court premises to men, women, transgender, Person with disabilities as well as to advocates and court staff etc. | The SC relying on several legislations and international view, in larger public interest issued directions to all HC, States and UTs to ensure construction of public conveniences in court premises which should be clearly identifiable to judges, advocates, litigants, court staff etc. Also they are required to allocate funds accordingly for the said purpose and hereby are required to form committee in all states which would prepare comprehensive plan and ensure implementation. |
| Biswajeet vs Central Bureau of Investigation | Whether the scope of appeal under Article 142 of the Constiution of India could be enlarged if a limited notice has been issued by the court? | The SC held that In such a case, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the Bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands. |
| Sudheera vs C Yashoda | Whether the High Court can pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100 CPC? | The SC held that the High Court has jurisdiction to pass an interim order ex parte, however, it does not empower to grant ad interim relief, without examining the parties and formulating the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal as it is contrary to section 100 CPC. |
| Vijay @ Vijayakumar vs State represented by Inspector of Police | What are the essential ingredients of Exception 1 of Section 300 upon whose fulfilment murder could be converted into culpable homicide. | The SC laying its emphasis on the elements of Exception 1 to section 300 held that the case can only fall under the exception when the court is able to hold that provided the alleged provocation is given, every normal person would behave or act in the same way as the accused in the circumstances in which the accused was placed, acted |
| Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors | Whether the party being a necessary party aggrieved by the judgement of Division Bench of High Court for not being heard move to Supreme Court under Article 32 for setting aside of impugned judgement? | The SC Held that under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal. If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court |
| Jyostnamayee Mishra vs The State of Odisha | Whether an employee in an establishment is entitled to claim promotion on a post for which he does not fall in the feeder cadre and the post is required to be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment whether a vacancy meant for direct recruitment can be filled up merely by issuing a circular in the establishment and not by issuing an advertisement calling application from the eligible candidates from public at large Whether an order passed by the Court below where the parties failed to produce proper documents or annexed incorrectly typed documents is valid? | The Supreme Court held that public recruitments must be done in light of pre-established rules and therefore has set aside the judgement of the HC noting that the position of Tracer has to be filled by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. Also mere issuing circular for recruitment in the establishment does not follow the procedure established for such recruitments. |
| Directorate of Enforcement Vs Subhash Sharma | Whether the non -fulfilment of requirements of PMLA restrict grant of bail even if the fundamental rights of the accused are violated? | The SC held that when arrest is illegal or is vitiated thereby violating fundamental rights of accused under Article 21 and 22, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA. |
| Thammaraya and Another vs The State of Karnataka | Examining the chain of circumstantial evidence in leading to prove guilt of accused | The SC in light of established principles for circumstantial evidence held that the chain of circumstantial evidences in the present case cannot be held to be so complete, so as to lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused which is totally inconsistent with their innocence |
| Nimai Ghosh & Ors Vs The state of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) | To determine the appellantsā guilt, it is imperative to consider as to how and in what manner a witnessās testimony may be deemed credible or otherwise in support of the prosecutionās case | The SC held that as a general rule, to prove the case of the prosecution, the testimony of eyewitness primarily ought to be considered and be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. It is trite to say that the testimony of the eyewitness must be trustworthy, free from any kind of blemish and of sterling character to prove the incident, whereby the case of the prosecution may be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also settled that the quality of evidence brought to prove the guilt is a relevant factor and not the quality of the witnesses To adjudge the credibility of the said testimony, relevant factor would be the conduct of the witness indicating the natural reaction comparable to a prudent man, making the conduct of witness realistic. |
| S Shobha vs Muthoot Finance Ltd | Whether a Private non banking financial institution being regulated by norms of RBI be covered under definition of state under Article 12 of the Constiution and therefore be amenable to writ jurisidiction to HC under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ? | The Supreme Court held the judgement of HC to be correct and stated that any private body which is merely bound by regulatory measures of Govt. Institution or is carrying out banking operation as scheduled bank cannot said to be statutory body or performing public duty respectively and hence could not be covered under definition of state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thereby restricts amenability through writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. |
| Madhushree Datta Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr | Whether Use of Filthy Language amounts to breach of Peace under section 504 and to outraging modesty under section 506 of IPC | The SC in the case in hand set aside the impugned judgement of High Court and held that use of filthy language in isolation and without context does not invoke section 504 and 506 of IPC. |
| Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill vs The State of Punjab & Ors | Whether the impugned order of the High Court, in which the Disciplinary Authorityās order imposing penalty and the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant have merged, warrants any interference on any of the grounds available for judicial review? | The SC on subject of interference through Judicial review held that should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. |
| Somdutt Builders NEC-NCC Vs National Highways Authority of India | Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 having extremely limited jurisdiction set aside arbitral award made under section 34 of the act? | The SC held that it is necessary to remind the courts that a great deal of restraint is required to be shown while examining the validity of an arbitral award when such an award has been upheld, wholly or substantially, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Frequent Interference with arbitral awards would defeat the very purpose of the 1996 Act. |
| Ivan Rathinam vs Milan Joseph | Whether the presumption of legitimacy, if not displaced, determines Paternity in law? | The SC in light of eminent requirement for DNA test and the principle of right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India held that Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ānon-accessā. |
| Dr Tanvi Behel vs Shreya Goyal | Whether residence-based reservation in Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses by a State is constitutionally valid? The concept of Domicile in Indian Laws | The SC held that the residence based reservation in Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses by a state is unconstitutional āDomicileā is primarily a legal concept for the purposes of determining what is the āpersonal lawā applicable to an individual. Therefore, even if an individual has no permanent residence or permanent home, he is still invested with a ādomicileā albeit by law or implication of law. |
| Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari vs State of Gujarat | When can a person seek exemption from surrender by way of interlocutory application in special leave petition? | The SC relying upon Order 22 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 held that an Interlocutory Application for exemption from surrendering is admissible only where the petitioner in the special leave petition has been āsentenced to a term of imprisonmentā and not in any other situation. |
| Shripal Vs Nagar Nigam | Whether termination during pendency of conciliation proceedings amount to violation of Section 6E of The UP Industrial Disputes Act 1947? | The SC quashed the judgement of High Court and declared the act of Municipal Corporation as unfair labour Practice and therefore held that termination of employee during the pendency of conciliation proceeding would amount to violation of section 6E of the UP Industrial Disputes Act 1947 |
Lawcutor 