Skip to content
Home » Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India

Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 – Defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. AIR 2022 SC 1560 : JT 2022 (3) SC 372

Kirpal Kaur v. Ritesh

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 16 and 20 – Agreement to Sell – Readiness and Willingness – Merely because in the document the purpose of sale of the property was stated to be for the marriage expenses, the document which otherwise can be said to be an agreement to sell, will not become a loan agreement and/or security document. AIR 2022 SC 1555 : JT 2022 (3) SC 387

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh

Service Law – Doctrine of Equality in Disciplinary Proceedings – The Doctrine of Equality ought not to have been applied when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority held the charges proved against the delinquent officer. AIR 2022 SC 1551 : JT 2022 (3) SC 382

N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court while exercising its jurisdiction. AIR 2022 SC 1531 : JT 2022 (3) SC 392

Anar Devi v. Vasudev Mangal

Mesne Profits – the High Court has not at all considered the market rate as per the current potential of the suit property. The High Court has mechanically reduced the mesne profits to 50%. Even if the valuer’s report was for commercial use/commercial property, in that case also, the mesne profits could not have been reduced by 50%. AIR 2022 SC 1375 : JT 2022 (3) SC 124

Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 482 – Power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies. JT 2022 (2) SC 112