Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35

Supreme Court Upholds Citizen’s Property Rights Against State’s Adverse Possession Claim: State of Haryana vs. Amin Lal (2024) INSC 875 (19 November 2024)

/ Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 5, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 110, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 65, Property Law, State and Property Rights

Supreme Court Upholds Citizen’s Property Rights Against State’s Adverse Possession Claim Date of the Judgment: 19 November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 875 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prasanna B. Varale, J. Can a state claim ownership of a citizen’s property through adverse possession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case […]

Supreme Court Upholds Citizen’s Property Rights Against State’s Adverse Possession Claim: State of Haryana vs. Amin Lal (2024) INSC 875 (19 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Declares Election Void Due to Age Disqualification: Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (2022) INSC 963 (7 November 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 173, Elections, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Judges

Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 963 Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice B.V. Nagarathna Can a candidate’s election be invalidated if they are found to be under the minimum age requirement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent election dispute, ultimately setting aside the election

Supreme Court Declares Election Void Due to Age Disqualification: Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (2022) INSC 963 (7 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 with Section 94

Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of juvenility in cases involving heinous crimes. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Juvenile Justice Case Name: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: 18 November 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surajdeo Mahto vs. State of Bihar (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with Section 7A, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Human Body, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surajdeo Mahto vs. State of Bihar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Surajdeo Mahto and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar Judgment Date: 04 August

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Surajdeo Mahto vs. State of Bihar (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Revenue Records, Rejects Oral Tenancy Claim: Partap Singh vs. Shiv Ram (20 February 2020)

/ Burden of Proof, Hemant Gupta, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 109, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Land Revenue Act, Land Revenue Act with Section 45, Periodical Record, Record of Rights

Supreme Court Upholds Revenue Records, Rejects Oral Tenancy Claim: Partap Singh vs. Shiv Ram (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether oral evidence can rebut the presumption of truth attached to revenue records regarding land ownership and tenancy. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Land Dispute Case Name: Shri Partap Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. Shiv Ram

Supreme Court Upholds Revenue Records, Rejects Oral Tenancy Claim: Partap Singh vs. Shiv Ram (20 February 2020) Read Post »

Child Legitimacy in Irregular Muslim Marriages Upheld: Supreme Court Decision in Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen (22 January 2019)

/ Family Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Inheritance, Judges, Marriage, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Muslim Law, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Child Legitimacy in Irregular Muslim Marriages: Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a child born from an irregular Muslim marriage (fasid) is considered legitimate and entitled to inherit property. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Partition and Inheritance) Case Name: Mohammed Salim (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through Lrs.

Child Legitimacy in Irregular Muslim Marriages Upheld: Supreme Court Decision in Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen (22 January 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Police Custody Rape Case: Charanjit & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (2013)

/ A.K. Patnaik, Gyan Sudha Misra, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 157, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Date of the Judgment: July 4, 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 497 Judges: A. K. Patnaik, J. and Gyan Sudha Misra, J. Can police officers be convicted for raping a woman in their custody? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where police officers were accused of raping a woman while

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Police Custody Rape Case: Charanjit & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles procedure for age determination of juvenile offenders in criminal cases: Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008)

/ C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with Section 49, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with Section 53

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., D.K. Jain, J. When an accused claims to be a juvenile, how should courts determine their age? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand. The case clarifies the procedure for determining the

Supreme Court settles procedure for age determination of juvenile offenders in criminal cases: Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top