Skip to content

Judgments

152 judgments match your search. Search by party name, citation (e.g. LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 5), case number, judge or words in the judgment, or pick a date of decision.

Clear

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 111 · High Court of Kerala

Prof. Dr. P.P. Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 85765

SubjectUniversity
JudgesJustice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
ActsSree Narayana Guru Open University Act, 2021 (Sections 20, 25 and 26); General Clauses Act, 1897 (Sections 16 and 21); Constitution of India (Articles 14 and 226)

Members nominated to the Syndicate of Sree Narayana Guru Open University have no fixed term under Sections 25 and 26 of the 2021 Act; the Government’s withdrawal of their nominations without reasons was upheld.

LOK 2026 (9) SC 304 · Supreme Court of India

Sainaba v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1069 : 2026 KLT OnLine 4639

SubjectCheque
JudgesJustice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Manmohan
ActsNegotiable Instruments Act 1881

Requirement of ‘giving of notice’ under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, 1881 stands satisfied once statutory demand notice is dispatched by registered post to the correct address of the drawer/accused. Delivery of notice at the correct residential address, even if received by…

LOK 2026 (7) SC 305 · Supreme Court of India

S.P. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Equivalent citations: 2026 (7) SCD 304 : 2026 INSC 769 : AIR 2026 SC 3626

SubjectAdministrative
JudgesJustice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih
ActsCo-operative Societies Act 1960 (Chhattisgarh)

The Registrar possesses statutory power under Section 55(1) of the 1960 Act to frame rules governing terms and conditions of employment in cooperative societies. Pursuant to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the power to frame rules inherently includes the authority to amend,…

LOK 2026 (3) SC 259 · Supreme Court of India

Southern Power Distribution Company v. Green Infra Wind Solutions

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 294

SubjectElectricity, Renewable Energy
JudgesJustice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
ActsElectricity Act, 2003 (Sections 61, 62, 64(6), 86 and 181); APERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination for Wind Power Projects) Regulations, 2015 (Regulation 20); General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 21); Constitution of India (Articles 112, 113, 114 and 282)

A State Electricity Regulatory Commission may consider a central incentive while fixing tariff, but must give it the purpose intended; the Generation Based Incentive for wind generators is payable over and above the tariff and cannot be deducted.

LOK 2019 (4) SC 20 · Supreme Court of India

Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur v. Shri Ram Shanker Yadav

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 450

SubjectGratuity, Labour Law, Municipal Law
JudgesJustice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Hemant Gupta
ActsPayment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Section 1(3); Section 2(e); Section 14); Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (Section 548); Section 3, U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962; General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 3(31))

Two municipal bodies in Uttar Pradesh, at Kanpur and Gorakhpur, challenged orders of the Controlling Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 granting gratuity to their retired employees, which the High Court had upheld. The municipalities contended that their employees were entitled to gratuity only under the Retirement Benefits and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 framed under Section 548 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which capped gratuity at 16.5 months, and that the Central Act did not apply as local bodies were neither factories nor establishments covered by the State shops law. The employees relied on a Central Government notification of 08.01.1982 under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act.

LOK 2019 (4) SC 27 · Supreme Court of India

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur v. Mujib Ullah Khan

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 449 : AIR 2019 SC 1665 : JT 2019 (4) SC 10 : 2019 KLT (Online) 3055 : 2019 (5) Scale 756 : (2019) 6 SCC 103 : 2019 KHC 6391

SubjectGratuity, Labour Law, Municipal Law
JudgesJustice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Hemant Gupta
ActsPayment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Section 1(3); Section 2(e); Section 14); Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (Section 548); Section 3, U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962; General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 3(31))

Two municipal bodies in Uttar Pradesh, at Kanpur and Gorakhpur, challenged orders of the Controlling Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 granting gratuity to their retired employees, which the High Court had upheld. The municipalities contended that their employees were entitled to gratuity only under the Retirement Benefits and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 framed under Section 548 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which capped gratuity at 16.5 months, and that the Central Act did not apply as local bodies were neither factories nor establishments covered by the State shops law. The employees relied on a Central Government notification of 08.01.1982 under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act.

LOK 2019 (4) SC 29 · Supreme Court of India

Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 457 : 2019 (1) BankJ 1 : JT 2019 (4) SC 206 : 2019 KLT (Online) 3005 : 2019 (5) Scale 629 : (2019) 5 SCC 480 : 2019 KHC 6385

SubjectBanking Law, Constitutional Law, Insolvency and Bankruptcy
JudgesJustice R.F. Nariman, Justice Vineet Saran
ActsBanking Regulation Act, 1949 (Sections 21, 35A, 35AA and 35AB); Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Section 45L); Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Sections 3(12) and 7); General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 13); Constitution of India (Article 14)

By a circular dated 12.02.2018, the RBI replaced its earlier restructuring schemes with a revised framework for stressed assets. For accounts with aggregate exposure of INR 2000 crore and above, if a resolution plan was not implemented within 180 days of default, lenders had to file insolvency applications within 15 days. The circular cited Sections 35A, 35AA and 35AB of the Banking Regulation Act and Section 45L of the RBI Act as its sources of power. Power generation companies and other sectors challenged Sections 35AA and 35AB as manifestly arbitrary and unguided, and the circular as ultra vires. They relied on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports on the power sector’s problems, many caused by government policy.

LOK 2017 (1) SC 26 · Supreme Court of India

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar & Ors.

Subject–
JudgesJustice S.A. Bobde, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Justice L. Nageswara Rao
ActsGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 6); Government of India Act, 1935 (Sections 43, 88 and 90); Government India Act, 1935 (Section 90); Constitution of India (Articles 14, 32, 154, 168, 200, 213(2), 213, 213(1), 213(2)(a), 213(2)(b), 213(3), 249, 250, 304(b), 352(4), 352(1), 356(1), 356(3), 356, 357(2), 360, 360(2) and 367(2))