The Google LLC v. CCI case (2023) upheld a ₹1337.76 crore penalty for Google’s abuse of dominance in the Android ecosystem. The NCLAT found Google imposed unfair conditions on OEMs, restricting competition. Some CCI directives were modified, but the penalty remained.

In Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court upheld burial rights as integral to dignity under Article 21, balancing equality and secularism with public order. The split verdict addressed constitutional principles versus adherence to statutory rules.

In Parsvnath Developers v. Brig. Devendra Singh Yadav, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the "seat" of arbitration determines court jurisdiction, not the "venue," and an Order VII Rule 10 CPC order is non-appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. held that disputes concerning title and validity of transactions fall under civil court jurisdiction, as such matters are beyond the scope of the SARFAESI Act. Partial rejection of plaints is impermissible.

In Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1970 SC 283), the Supreme Court held that sniffer dog evidence, while admissible, has limited reliability and requires corroboration. The appellant's conviction relied on a voluntary confession and discovery of incriminating evidence.

The Supreme Court in Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. held that complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before 20th July 2020 must remain in the same forum despite revised pecuniary limits under CPA 2019, ensuring continuity and fairness.

In Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning convictions under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. Key issues included a delayed FIR, lack of coercion, and insufficient evidence, leading to doubts about the prosecution's claims.

The Supreme Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Bhonsle (2024) held that courts must confidently reject plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if barred by limitation, stressing that clever drafting can't bypass statutory deadlines.

The Supreme Court upheld the 2017 Amendment Acts permitting Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races, citing cultural significance and compliance with animal welfare laws. It overruled A. Nagaraja, affirming states’ legislative competence and balancing heritage with cruelty prevention.

The Supreme Court in Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors. reaffirmed that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, including a valid written contract, lawful possession, and willingness to perform obligations.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction over a fee refund dispute involving the Indian Maritime University. It also held that educational institutions are not "service providers" under the Consumer Protection Act.

In Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court ruled that the backyard of a private house does not qualify as a "public view" under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, discharging the appellant from charges of caste-based abuse and related IPC offences.

In Nalin Choksey v. Commissioner of Customs, the SC held that subsequent purchasers aren't liable for customs duty evasion by importers. It ruled that liability arises at importation, not ownership transfer, and set aside duties imposed on the appellant.

The Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir upheld procedural compliance under Section 50 NDPS Act, ruling that using "any" instead of "nearest" Gazetted Officer doesn’t invalidate the search if substantive rights aren’t prejudiced. Bail was revoked.

Expert evidence must rely on scientific methodology, adequately explained and backed by credible data, allowing courts to independently evaluate its accuracy and reliability

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, integral to dignity and autonomy, yet subject to reasonable restrictions.

In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, the Supreme Court invalidated the 1969 bank nationalization act, citing inadequate compensation and violation of property rights, thus breaching Articles 14, 19, and 31.

The Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan upheld the 17th Constitutional Amendment, validating its addition of laws to the Ninth Schedule, aimed at supporting socio-economic land reforms.

In Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair (1994), the Supreme Court upheld the application of res judicata to injunction decrees from courts with limited pecuniary jurisdiction. The case involved property rights and multiple suits following the alienation of a life estate. The Court ruled that once a comp

In Nanchand Gangaram v. Malappa Mahalingappa (AIR 1976 SC 835), the Supreme Court held that Section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act does not apply to Hindu Joint Families, as these are based on status, not contract. The court emphasized that a Karta’s acknowledgment of debt cannot extend the statut

In Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya (AIR 1959 SC 781), the Supreme Court of India held that while wagering contracts are void under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, they are not illegal under Section 23. The court ruled that partnerships formed for wagering purposes are not unlawful, as wag

In Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Ors (1991), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a foreign court’s decree dissolving a marriage is unenforceable if it lacks jurisdiction under Indian law. The Missouri court’s divorce decree, based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” was

In Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is not void, even if erroneous, unless the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. The High Court’

In Addanki Narayanappa and Ors. v. Bhaskara Krishtappa and Ors. (1966), the Supreme Court of India clarified that a partner’s interest in a firm during its existence is not specific to any particular asset, whether movable or immovable. Partners have no claim over specific properties but only to a s

“Indian courts are not bound to recognize foreign divorce decrees