Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in land dispute case Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 79 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s acquittal simply by re-appreciating the evidence, without finding any perversity in the trial court’s approach? The […]
Supreme Court Restores Appeal Dismissed in Default: Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S.S. Sarvesh LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appeal dismissed for default can be restored if sufficient cause is shown. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S.S. Sarvesh Judgment Date: 05 February 2019 Date of the Judgment: 05
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Kalua @ Koshal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified based on the evidence presented. CASE TYPE: Criminal
Supreme Court Orders Open Remand for Land Compensation: Ali Akbar vs. State of Kerala (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2018 Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 10786-10787 of 2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 10788-10796 of 2018 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Can a High Court remand a land acquisition compensation case back to the
Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 372 CrPC LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a victim has a right to appeal against an acquittal order and whether leave to appeal is required. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 12
Supreme Court Grants Leave to Appeal in Housing Society Case: Dahisar Saraswati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to grant leave to file an appeal against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Dahisar Saraswati Co-op. Housing Society
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Non-Parties in Land Dispute: Ashok Singh vs. State of UP (2018) Date of the Judgment: September 11, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 776 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Vineet Saran, J. Can individuals who were not originally involved in a legal dispute challenge the final order? The Supreme Court of
Supreme Court Enhances Murder Sentence to Life Imprisonment: Bharatkumar Rameshchandra Barot vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 232 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a court impose a jail sentence less than life imprisonment for a murder conviction under Section 302 of the
Supreme Court directs expeditious disposal of appeal in trust property dispute: B. Muthukrishnan vs. S.T. Reddiar Educational & Charitable Trust (2018) Date of the Judgment: February 23, 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: R. K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can interim orders of a High Court be challenged in the Supreme Court? The
Supreme Court remands land acquisition case to High Court: Lohit & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2018) Date of the Judgment: February 9, 2018 Citation: [Not Available in the source] Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can a case be sent back to the High Court for reconsideration if a similar case has
Supreme Court disposes of land acquisition compensation appeals: Nachhatar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Land acquisition compensation. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Nachhatar Singh Etc. Etc. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. [Judgment Date]: January 22, 2018 Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2018 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Kurian
Can employees claim the right to continue in service until the age of 60? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch of appeals, including the case of Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. This judgment, delivered on September 14, 2017, allows the appellants’ claim for continued service up to
