Decisions cited in our guides
119 decisions, newest first. Each entry carries the citation the court gave it, the year it was decided, the point the guide relies on and a link to the guide that uses it. A case that appears twice is listed once, with both guides named.
Statutes are indexed separately at /legal-subjects.
2026 · Supreme Court of India
G. Saminathan v. State
2026 INSC 772
Cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot both be sustained on the same facts about the same property.
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
2026 INSC 519
The proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS giving the accused a hearing before cognizance is mandatory, and cognizance without it is void ab initio.
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan
2026 INSC 217
Without the mandatory certificate (Section 65B IEA, now Section 63 BSA), call detail records were inadmissible and could not support the prosecution.
Used in Criminal trial procedure
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
2026 INSC 666
Under Section 187(3) BNSS, non-supply of a copy of a charge sheet filed in time is not a ground for default bail.
Used in Bail and default bail
2026 · Supreme Court of India
State of Kerala v. Panacea Biotec Ltd.
2026 INSC 200
Whether directors in management were in charge of the business is a question of fact for trial.
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Sumit v. State of U.P.
2026 INSC 145
A High Court that finds a case for anticipatory bail should not restrict it to the filing of the charge sheet.
Used in Anticipatory bail
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan
2026 INSC 1147
Section 17A does not protect a bribe demand, because it is not a decision or recommendation in official duty.
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka
2026 INSC 67
An acquittal may be reversed only for perversity, misreading of material evidence, or where no other reasonable view is possible.
Used in Criminal appeals and revisions
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Union of India v. Sunil Biyani
2026 INSC 849
The Commissioner's order under Section 69 CGST must be communicated to the person before arrest.
Used in GST and customs prosecutions
2026 · Supreme Court of India
Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
2026 INSC 525
Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is a procedural safeguard and not an idle formality; incriminating circumstances must be put to him.
Used in Criminal trial procedure
2026 · Supreme Court of India
XXX v. State of Kerala
2026 INSC 88
Section 175(4) BNSS does not cover oral complaints, leaves the Magistrate a discretion, and does not stop rejection of an untenable application with reasons.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 573
Where acquittal first comes from the Sessions Court in appeal, the victim's appeal lies to the High Court.
Used in Criminal appeals and revisions
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2612
A victim, including a cheque payee who is also the complainant, can appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without special leave.
Used in Criminal appeals and revisions
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Inox Air Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1235
A complaint disclosing no offence, and a summoning order without reasons, were quashed.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 291
Written grounds are required where the police hold documentary material; oral notice at arrest can suffice in flagrante delicto cases.
Used in Arrest and police summons
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 987
Total non-compliance with Section 52A, with other lapses, led to acquittal.
Used in NDPS Act cases
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1469
Section 175(3) BNSS requires a prior affidavit-backed application to the Superintendent of Police and consideration of the police officer's submissions.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072
Where demand is not proved, the Section 20 presumption does not operate and the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331
GST and customs arrest powers are valid but subject to the CrPC, reasons to believe on material, communicated grounds and judicial review.
Used in GST and customs prosecutions
2025 · Supreme Court of India
S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka
2025 INSC 917
Civil and criminal cases can run together, but a criminal case without an element of criminality is an abuse of process.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Sanjay Dutt v. State of Haryana
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 446
A complaint against directors must attribute a specific role to each; vague allegations do not justify summoning them.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 485
An accused in a serious economic offence who evades warrants should not get anticipatory bail.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Shailja Krishna v. Satori Global Ltd.
2025 INSC 1065
The Supreme Court restored the order of the Tribunal in an oppression matter and set aside the common appellate judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal.
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal
2025 INSC 883
Directed that the Allahabad High Court's guidelines on Family Welfare Committees for Section 498A cases remain in effect.
Used in Dowry and cruelty cases
2025 · Supreme Court of India
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
(2025) 5 SCC 799
Failure to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest and remand.
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
(2024) 9 SCC 577
Its safeguards on arrest without warrant apply to GST and customs arrests.
Used in GST and customs prosecutions
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 930
When suspending a sentence of fine under Section 389 CrPC (now Section 430 BNSS), the appellate court may impose conditions such as a deposit, but not one so harsh that it defeats the right of appeal.
Used in Criminal appeals and revisions
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 533
An irregularity in sanction does not undo a conviction unless it caused a failure of justice.
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana
(2025) 3 SCC 735
Naming a husband's relatives without specific allegations of active involvement is an abuse of process and should be quashed.
Used in Dowry and cruelty cases
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2024) 10 SCC 690
A Magistrate must be especially careful when taking cognizance on a private complaint and issuing process.
Used in Private complaints to the Magistrate, White-collar crime and corporate fraud
2024 · Supreme Court of India
M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr.
(2024) 1 SCC 42
Money collected as share application money pending allotment and not refunded is treated as a deposit, and the default on that deposit disqualifies a director for five years.
Used in Company compliance calendar and ROC filings, Director duties and personal liability
2024 · Supreme Court of India
M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of West Bengal
2024 INSC 186
A misbranding sentence under the old Act was reduced to a fine because the FSSA provides only a penalty.
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
2024 INSC 595
Long custody without the trial starting violates the right to a speedy trial and weighs in favour of bail.
Used in Bail and default bail, Money laundering cases (PMLA)
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 740
An FIR arising from a breach of contract that was essentially civil was quashed as an abuse of process.
Used in Quashing of FIR
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 955
Bail is the rule under the PMLA too; Section 50 statements made in ED custody are inadmissible against the maker.
Used in Money laundering cases (PMLA)
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 438
Interim compensation under Section 143A is discretionary and needs a prima facie view of both sides and brief reasons.
Used in Cheque bounce cases (NI Act)
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 743
Section 59 of the FSSA overrides Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC, so both cannot be prosecuted together.
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 409
Delay by the police in reporting the freezing of bank accounts to the Magistrate does not by itself vitiate the seizure.
Used in Cyber crime and the IT Act
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 818
The dowry death presumption arises only after the prosecution proves every ingredient, including cruelty soon before death linked to a dowry demand.
Used in Dowry and cruelty cases
2024 · Supreme Court of India
State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1314
Bail in a commercial quantity case cannot ignore the twin conditions of Section 37.
Used in NDPS Act cases
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office
(2024) 7 SCC 61
After cognizance, the ED cannot arrest an accused named in the complaint without the Special Court's leave; an accused not arrested before the complaint is summoned, and a Section 88 CrPC bond is not bail.
Used in Money laundering cases (PMLA)
2024 · Supreme Court of India
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 235
Courts should not routinely let the police seek custody remand after granting anticipatory bail.
Used in Anticipatory bail
2023 · Supreme Court of India
Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 772
The Supreme Court held that a committee must inform the employee of the allegations, supply the evidence and allow a reasonable opportunity to answer, and that undue haste cannot cut short a fair hearing.
Used in POSH complaint and inquiry, POSH compliance for employers
2023 · Supreme Court of India
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd.
(2023) 1 SCC 1
A certificate of recovery has to be read against the separate statutory route for the winding up of a company or a limited liability partnership.
2023 · Supreme Court of India
Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel and Anr. v. Ambika Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 243
An allotment made on the basis of the register of members can be examined and the direction to allot set aside, so the register is not the last word on who holds what.
Used in Statutory registers, share movements and charge creation, Director duties and personal liability, Related party transactions and section 188 approval
2023 · Supreme Court of India
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
(2024) 7 SCC 576
A written copy of the grounds of arrest must be given to the arrested person.
Used in GST and customs prosecutions, Money laundering cases (PMLA)
2023 · Supreme Court of India
Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586
A PMLA accused benefits from acquittal, discharge or quashing in the scheduled offence case.
Used in Money laundering cases (PMLA)
2023 · Supreme Court of India
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
(2023) 14 SCC 231
The Court relied on Amardeep Singh and repeated that the cooling-off period can be waived where the proceedings have remained pending for long.
Used in Mutual consent divorce
2022 · Supreme Court of India
Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor
(2022) 12 SCC 286
Section 79 of RERA does not bar a consumer commission from hearing a homebuyer's complaint.
Used in Delayed possession and refund, TNRERA complaint procedure
2022 · Supreme Court of India
Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. v. JAL
(2022) 1 SCC 401
A scheme takes effect as an order of the court and binds all the persons who are subject to it, and the tribunal cannot reopen the commercial terms once the stakeholders have settled them.
Used in Mergers, schemes and acquisition clearances, Related party transactions and section 188 approval
2022 · Supreme Court of India
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(2023) 4 SCC 731
Demand or offer must be proved as a fact; it may be proved by circumstantial evidence even if the complainant turns hostile or dies.
2022 · Supreme Court of India
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2022) 10 SCC 51
Non-compliance with the arrest and notice provisions entitles the accused to bail.
2022 · Supreme Court of India
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
(2023) 12 SCC 1
Upheld the main PMLA provisions; the twin bail conditions restrict bail but are not an absolute bar.
Used in Money laundering cases (PMLA)
2021 · Supreme Court of India
Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr.
(2021) 7 SCC 474
The promoters of a company in liquidation cannot bring a scheme of compromise or arrangement, and the scheme route is not a way around the eligibility rules.
Used in Mergers, schemes and acquisition clearances, Related party transactions and section 188 approval
2021 · Supreme Court of India
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta & Ors.
(2021) 7 SCC 209
The Limited Liability Partnership Act confers jurisdiction on the National Company Law Tribunal for the dissolution and winding up of limited liability partnerships, with the appeal lying to the Appellate Tribunal.
2021 · Supreme Court of India
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1044
Stay of investigation or 'no coercive steps' orders in quashing petitions only in exceptional cases, with brief reasons.
Used in Quashing of FIR
2021 · Supreme Court of India
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2021) 18 SCC 1
The Act applies to ongoing projects; promoters of incomplete projects had to register and declare fresh timelines for the remaining work.
2021 · Supreme Court of India
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd.
(2021) 9 SCC 449
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in the Tata Sons oppression matter and dismissed the company petition filed under sections 241 and 242.
Used in Shareholder disputes and NCLT remedies, Shareholders' and joint venture agreements, Director duties and personal liability, Related party transactions and section 188 approval
2021 · Supreme Court of India
Vinod Krishan Khanna v. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills Private Limited
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 708
The Supreme Court restored the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the consideration for the shares and reversed the reduction made by the Appellate Tribunal.
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
(2020) 7 SCC 1
The certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to admitting electronic records, and oral evidence cannot take its place.
Used in Criminal trial procedure, Cyber crime and the IT Act
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Aruna Oswal v. Pankaj Oswal & Ors.
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 476
A petition under sections 241 and 242 is not entertained where the applicant's holding is minimal and the real dispute is a civil one about inheritance.
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) 17 SCC 324
A limited liability partnership is a person who may be admitted to the insolvency framework, and it is named as such in the definition.
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Hira Singh v. Union of India
(2020) 20 SCC 272
The whole weight of a mixture, including neutral substances, decides small or commercial quantity.
Used in NDPS Act cases
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni
(2020) 10 SCC 783
The remedies under Section 18 are without prejudice to any other remedy available to the homebuyer.
Used in Delayed possession and refund, TNRERA complaint procedure
2020 · Supreme Court of India
M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(2021) 2 SCC 485
The right to default bail is availed when the application is filed, and a later charge sheet does not defeat it.
Used in Bail and default bail
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
(2020) 4 SCC 727
Anticipatory bail is barred for SC/ST Act offences unless the complaint shows no prima facie case under that Act.
Used in Anticipatory bail
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2020) 5 SCC 1
Protection need not be limited in time and can continue till the end of the trial, unless special features justify a limit.
Used in Anticipatory bail
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2021) 4 SCC 1
Confessions to NDPS officers are barred, and Section 67 statements cannot be used as confessions.
Used in NDPS Act cases
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma
(2021) 12 SCC 674
Police cannot register an FIR or investigate Chapter IV offences; only the persons named in Section 32 can prosecute.
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma
(2020) 9 SCC 1
A daughter of a coparcener is a coparcener by birth, whether born before or after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
Used in Wills and probate
2020 · Supreme Court of India
Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan
(2020) 3 SCC 67
Visitation rights must be sufficient and defined, and denial is justified only in extreme circumstances with reasons.
Used in Child custody and visitation
2019 · Supreme Court of India
Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
(2019) 5 SCC 418
An accused can rebut the presumption on the material already on record and need not give evidence himself.
Used in Cheque bounce cases (NI Act)
2019 · Supreme Court of India
Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India
(2019) 9 SCC 161
When the promoter siphoned homebuyer money and left the Amrapali projects incomplete, the Supreme Court cancelled the group’s lease deeds, appointed NBCC to complete the projects, and directed an Enforcement Directorate investigation.
2019 · Supreme Court of India
Hari Sankaran v. Union of India
[2019] 8 S.C.R. 761
The powers of the Tribunal under section 130 and under sections 241 and 242 operate in different fields, and the orders made on each are independent of the other.
Used in Shareholder disputes and NCLT remedies, Company compliance calendar and ROC filings
2019 · Supreme Court of India
Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1070
A buyer cannot be required to wait indefinitely for possession; a long delay can justify refund with interest.
Used in Delayed possession and refund
2018 · Supreme Court of India
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka
(2019) 2 SCC 752
A victim may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to the court that hears conviction appeals.
Used in Criminal appeals and revisions
2018 · Supreme Court of India
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 443
Modified Rajesh Sharma: the Family Welfare Committee directions were held erroneous, while the bail-related protective directions were kept.
Used in Dowry and cruelty cases
2018 · Supreme Court of India
State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan
(2019) 18 SCC 145
Breach of FSSA orders can also be prosecuted under the IPC; the only bar is on punishing the offender twice.
2017 · Supreme Court of India
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
(2017) 8 SCC 746
The six-month period under Section 13B(2) is directory and can be waived in exceptional situations.
Used in Mutual consent divorce
2017 · Supreme Court of India
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat
(2017) 9 SCC 641
Summarises the settlement principles; economic offences with wider social impact are not quashed merely because the parties settled.
Used in Quashing of FIR
2016 · Supreme Court of India
Union of India v. Mohanlal
(2016) 3 SCC 379
Samples are drawn before the Magistrate under Section 52A, without undue delay after seizure.
Used in NDPS Act cases
2015 · Supreme Court of India
Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh
(2016) 2 SCC 75
After the 2015 amendment, the court where the payee's bank branch receives the cheque for collection has jurisdiction.
Used in Cheque bounce cases (NI Act)
2015 · Supreme Court of India
Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka
(2015) 14 SCC 186
The validity of sanction can be raised at any stage, and an invalid sanction allows discharge and a fresh sanction.
2015 · Supreme Court of India
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2015) 6 SCC 287
An application for Magistrate-ordered investigation must be supported by the applicant's affidavit and preceded by approaches to the police.
2015 · Supreme Court of India
Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma
(2015) 8 SCC 318
The proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the mother for a child below five.
Used in Child custody and visitation
2015 · Supreme Court of India
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) 5 SCC 1
Section 66A of the IT Act was declared unconstitutional and struck down in its entirety.
Used in Cyber crime and the IT Act
2015 · Supreme Court of India
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2015) 4 SCC 609
Directors are not vicariously liable for a company's offence unless the statute says so or their own active role and intent are shown.
2014 · Supreme Court of India
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014) 8 SCC 273
Police must not arrest automatically in offences punishable up to seven years, and Magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically.
2013 · Supreme Court of India
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence.
2013 · Supreme Court of India
Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India
(2013) 1 SCC 297
The Court directed that complaints committees be treated as inquiry authorities under service rules and their reports as inquiry reports.
Used in POSH complaint and inquiry, POSH compliance for employers
2012 · Supreme Court of India
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303
The High Court may quash non-compoundable cases of a predominantly civil or private nature on settlement, but not serious offences against society.
Used in Quashing of FIR, Dowry and cruelty cases
2011 · Supreme Court of India
Chatterjee Petrochem (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.
[2011] 15 S.C.R. 135
Where a company is in substance a partnership, the members owe each other utmost good faith, and the conduct complained of must be harsh and wrongful.
2011 · Supreme Court of India
Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar
(2011) 5 SCC 234
Consent can be withdrawn at any stage before the decree, and the court cannot pass a decree after the withdrawal.
Used in Mutual consent divorce
2010 · Supreme Court of India
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.
(2010) 5 SCC 663
Set a graded cost for compounding at each stage, from 10 per cent before the Magistrate to 20 per cent before the Supreme Court.
Used in Cheque bounce cases (NI Act)
2010 · Supreme Court of India
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441
The Section 139 presumption includes a legally enforceable debt, but the accused can rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities.
Used in Cheque bounce cases (NI Act)
2010 · Supreme Court of India
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
(2010) 7 SCC 1
The Company Court has jurisdiction to sanction a scheme, and the scheme has to be judged against the memorandum of understanding, the interests of the shareholders and the public interest.
2010 · Supreme Court of India
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
(2011) 1 SCC 609
The officer must inform the suspect of the Section 50 right; strict compliance is required.
Used in NDPS Act cases
2009 · Supreme Court of India
Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh
(2009) 3 SCC 687
The Court listed circumstances that can excite suspicion about a will, including a beneficiary's prominent role in making it and an unnatural disposition.
Used in Wills and probate
2009 · Supreme Court of India
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal
(2009) 1 SCC 42
The welfare of the child is paramount, and custody is not decided by the rights of the parents under a statute.
Used in Child custody and visitation
2008 · Supreme Court of India
M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector
(2008) 7 SCC 196
Where the accused disputed the report in time but the sample was not re-tested before expiry, the case was quashed for loss of the Section 25 right.
2008 · Supreme Court of India
Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu
(2008) 9 SCC 413
Custody is decided by the welfare of the child, and the intelligent preference of the child is given due weight.
Used in Child custody and visitation
2007 · Supreme Court of India
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 4 SCC 415
An appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence in an acquittal appeal, but acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.
Used in Criminal appeals and revisions
2006 · Supreme Court of India
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.
(2006) 6 SCC 736
Civil disputes should not be turned into criminal cases, but a civil remedy does not bar prosecution where an offence is disclosed.
Used in Quashing of FIR
2006 · Supreme Court of India
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala
2006 INSC 678
The registration requirement is not attracted where a special statute has already provided for the recovery of the debt.
Used in Statutory registers, share movements and charge creation
2006 · Supreme Court of India
Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan
(2006) 4 SCC 227
A restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of the contract is void, and an injunction will not compel a personal service contract.
Used in Restrictive covenants
2005 · Supreme Court of India
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla
(2005) 8 SCC 89
Being described as a director is not enough; the complaint must contain the averments that bring the person within Section 141.
Used in Cheque bounce cases (NI Act)
2005 · Supreme Court of India
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad
(2005) 11 SCC 314
The principles that decide an oppression petition, and the burden of proving oppression or mismanagement lies on the applicant.
Used in Shareholder disputes and NCLT remedies, Shareholders' and joint venture agreements, Director duties and personal liability
1999 · Supreme Court of India
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
(1999) 1 SCC 759
The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts, and courts should not interfere with a finding that is supported by evidence.
Used in POSH complaint and inquiry, POSH compliance for employers
1998 · Supreme Court of India
Indian Bank v. Official Liquidator, Chemmeens Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors.
(1998) 5 SCC 401
A charge that was not registered under the Companies Act is not available against the company in a liquidation, and a preliminary decree passed on the basis of it does not become enforceable.
Used in Statutory registers, share movements and charge creation
1998 · Supreme Court of India
State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal
(1998) 5 SCC 343
A director is not liable under Section 34 merely for holding the post; the complaint must show responsibility for the business.
1997 · Supreme Court of India
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(1997) 6 SCC 241
The Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines on prevention, complaint committees and disciplinary action until Parliament legislated.
Used in POSH complaint and inquiry, POSH compliance for employers
1995 · Supreme Court of India
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.
(1995) 5 SCC 545
A negative stipulation confined to the subsistence of the agreement, including a notice period, is not a restraint of trade under Section 27.
Used in Restrictive covenants
1991 · Supreme Court of India
Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash
(1991) 2 SCC 25
Mutual consent must continue until the decree, and living separately means not living as husband and wife rather than living at different addresses.
Used in Mutual consent divorce
1990 · Supreme Court of India
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Lists seven illustrative categories in which an FIR or complaint may be quashed.
Used in Quashing of FIR
1981 · Supreme Court of India
Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai
(1981) 2 SCC 246
A restriction after termination is in restraint of trade and illegal under Section 27, and the English reasonableness doctrine does not apply.
Used in Restrictive covenants, Shareholders' and joint venture agreements
1980 · Supreme Court of India
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
(1980) 2 SCC 565
The fear of arrest must rest on specific facts; an FIR is not required, and relief is unavailable after arrest.
Used in Anticipatory bail
1973 · Supreme Court of India
Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd. v. P. A. Tendolkar (Dead) by L. Rs. and Ors.
(1973) 1 SCC 602
The principles that determine the liability of a managing director and the board in misfeasance proceedings, and the procedure for recovering the amount.
Used in Company compliance calendar and ROC filings, Director duties and personal liability
1967 · Supreme Court of India
Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
[1967] 2 S.C.R. 378
A negative covenant operating during employment, when the employee is bound to serve exclusively, is not a restraint of trade under Section 27.
Used in Restrictive covenants
1959 · Supreme Court of India
H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma
AIR 1959 SC 443
A will must be proved like any other document, and the propounder must remove suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
Used in Wills and probate