Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Subsequently Qualified Candidates: Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Kailash Chandra Jyotishi (2017)

/ Duties of Public Service Commission, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Recruitment Process, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Public Service Commission is obligated to consider candidates who become qualified after the initial recruitment process has commenced. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Kailash Chandra Jyotishi and Ors. Judgment Date: July 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 19, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in […]

Supreme Court Directs Consideration of Subsequently Qualified Candidates: Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Kailash Chandra Jyotishi (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fair rent determination for Hotel Tramboo: M/S. Hotel Tramboo Continental vs. Govt. of J&K (2017)

/ Administrative Decisions, Administrative Law, Contract Act, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Rent Disputes

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair rent for government-occupied hotel rooms. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: M/S. Hotel Tramboo Continental vs. Home Department Civil Secretariat Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Judgment Date: July 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 19, 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Supreme Court directs fair rent determination for Hotel Tramboo: M/S. Hotel Tramboo Continental vs. Govt. of J&K (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs equal treatment in Forest Guard regularization: Jagpal Singh Thakur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Equal Treatment, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Regularization, Service Law

Can a government deny regularization to an employee for marrying a few days before the prescribed age, while granting it to others in similar situations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case concerning the regularization of a Forest Guard in Madhya Pradesh. The Court directed the concerned authority to consider the

Supreme Court directs equal treatment in Forest Guard regularization: Jagpal Singh Thakur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Languishing in Jail: Rafiq vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

/ Bail, Criminal Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Speedy Trial

LEGAL ISSUE: Grant of Bail to an accused pending trial. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Rafiq vs. State of Rajasthan Judgment Date: 19 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 678 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can an accused be kept in jail indefinitely while awaiting

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Languishing in Jail: Rafiq vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case: Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017)

/ Admissibility of Evidence, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 364A, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body, S. A. Bobde

Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2017 The Supreme Court of India, in a criminal appeal, addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence in a case involving abduction and murder. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the chain of circumstances presented. The

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case: Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Representation of Unrecognised Unions in Industrial Disputes: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (2017)

/ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 36, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, R. Banumathi, Recognition of Trade Unions, Registration of Trade Unions, Representation of Unions, Trade Unions Act

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an unrecognized union can represent workers in industrial disputes when there is no recognized union. CASE TYPE: Industrial Dispute Case Name: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. and Anr. Judgment Date: 18 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9222 of 2017 [@ Special

Supreme Court Addresses Representation of Unrecognised Unions in Industrial Disputes: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Relaxes Bail Condition in Criminal Case: Rabindranath Barik vs. State of Odisha (2017)

/ Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Criminal Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Modification of Bail Conditions, Modification of Bail Conditions, R. Banumathi, Security for Bail, Security for Bail

Can a court modify bail conditions after a chargesheet has been filed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, focusing on the financial security required for bail. This case highlights the court’s power to adjust bail conditions based on the specific circumstances and the overall security already in place.

Supreme Court Relaxes Bail Condition in Criminal Case: Rabindranath Barik vs. State of Odisha (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Further Inquiry on Compensation in Unfair Trade Practice Case: Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga vs. K.L. Suneja & Ors. (2017) INSC 640 (18 July 2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 with Section 12B, Unfair Trade Practices

Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 640 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi. This was a division bench. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Kurian Joseph. Can a builder be liable for interest on a refund amount when the payment was made but not

Supreme Court Directs Further Inquiry on Compensation in Unfair Trade Practice Case: Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga vs. K.L. Suneja & Ors. (2017) INSC 640 (18 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on eviction for parting with possession without consent: Bhairon Sahai vs. Bishamber Dayal (2017)

/ Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(b), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(4), Eviction of Tenant, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. A. Bobde

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a landlord can evict a tenant for parting with possession of the premises without the landlord’s consent. CASE TYPE: Rent Control Law. Case Name: Bhairon Sahai (D) through Lrs. vs. Bishamber Dayal (D) through Lrs. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 18 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court rules on eviction for parting with possession without consent: Bhairon Sahai vs. Bishamber Dayal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of destruction of evidence: Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda vs. State of Gujarat (2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Prafulla C. Pant

Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 678 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Divided Opinion) Can mere silence and subsequent absconding be sufficient to convict a person for destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of destruction of evidence: Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda vs. State of Gujarat (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court ensures uniform compensation in land acquisition cases: Munshiya vs. State of U.P. (2017)

/ Civil Appeals, Civil Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition, R. Banumathi

Can land owners receive different compensation for land acquired under the same notification? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning land acquisition compensation. The court emphasized the need for uniformity in compensation for land acquired under the same notification. This judgment ensures that landowners receive equal treatment. Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court ensures uniform compensation in land acquisition cases: Munshiya vs. State of U.P. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Release of Enhanced Compensation in Land Acquisition Case: Nagorao vs. MIDC (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Compensation, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether enhanced compensation awarded in land acquisition cases should be released to the landowners. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Nagorao S/O Vitthalrao Salunke vs. Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur & Ors. Judgment Date: July 17, 2017 Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed the issue of releasing enhanced compensation

Supreme Court Orders Release of Enhanced Compensation in Land Acquisition Case: Nagorao vs. MIDC (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top