Indian Penal Code, 1860

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Police Recruitment, R. Banumathi, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even after acquittal, for the post of constable in the police force. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Criminal […]

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Screening Committee can deny appointment to candidates with a criminal history, despite acquittal, for the post of constable. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a police force reject candidates for a constable

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018)

/ Burden of Proof, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence of murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar. [Judgment Date]: January 8,

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 465, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Date of the Judgment: January 5, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a High Court quash an entire FIR after partially quashing it? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation for Tractor Accident Victim: Halappa vs. Malik Sab (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Compensation Claims, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 279, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 338, Insurance Liability, Judges, Motor Vehicle Accident Law

Can an insurance company deny a claim for compensation if the injured person was not a passenger in the vehicle? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case regarding a tractor accident. The court had to determine if the High Court was correct in reversing the compensation awarded by the Motor

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation for Tractor Accident Victim: Halappa vs. Malik Sab (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Freezing of Bank Accounts in Gujarat Riot Funds Case: Teesta Setalvad & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2017) INSC 1069 (15 December 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 102, Dipak Misra, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 with Foreign Donations, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Relating to Criminal Breach of Trust, Power of Police to Seize Property

LEGAL ISSUE: The central legal issue is the extent of the power of police officers to seize bank accounts under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly when those accounts are suspected to be linked to a crime. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. The State of Gujarat. Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Freezing of Bank Accounts in Gujarat Riot Funds Case: Teesta Setalvad & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2017) INSC 1069 (15 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Convictions in Deadly Mob Attack Case: Joseph vs. State (2017) INSC 1094

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for the acts of other members. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Joseph vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police [Judgment Date]: 14 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1094 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J. (authored the

Supreme Court Modifies Convictions in Deadly Mob Attack Case: Joseph vs. State (2017) INSC 1094 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 313, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of eye witness testimony and ballistic evidence in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir and Anr. Judgment Date: 13 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1048 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can inconsistencies in

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Rape Case, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction: Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8 December 2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 450, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(2)(v)

Date of the Judgment: 8 December 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J. and R. Banumathi, J. Can a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be upheld if the prosecution fails to prove that the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Rape Case, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction: Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing Summons in Land Fraud Case: Prabhu Dutt Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 204, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Relating to Documents, Offences Relating to Property

LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of Magistrate’s powers at the summoning stage in a criminal case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Prabhu Dutt Tiwari vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Judgment Date]: December 7, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: December 7, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 1045 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing Summons in Land Fraud Case: Prabhu Dutt Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Summon Additional Documents at Charge Framing Stage: Nitya Dharmananda vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 91, Framing of Charges, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can summon documents not included in the charge sheet at the stage of framing charges under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda and Anr.

Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Summon Additional Documents at Charge Framing Stage: Nitya Dharmananda vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top