Ashok Bhan

Supreme Court clarifies Rule 2(a) of Customs Tariff Act in Sony India Ltd. Case (2008)

/ Ashok Bhan, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 111(m), Customs Act, 1962 with Section 112(a), Customs Act, 1962 with Section 28(1), Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Rule 2(a), Judges, V.S. Sirpurkar

Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8236 of 2002 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether imported components of Colour Television (CTV) sets should be treated as complete CTV sets for the purpose of assessment under […]

Supreme Court clarifies Rule 2(a) of Customs Tariff Act in Sony India Ltd. Case (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission’s Symbol Order: Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India (23 September 2008)

/ Ashok Bhan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 324, Election Law, Election Symbols, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 29A, V.S. Sirpurkar

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2008 Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Can a political party perpetually retain a reserved election symbol, even after losing its recognized status? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a

Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission’s Symbol Order: Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India (23 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies Ayurvedic Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ishaan Research Lab (2008)

/ Ashok Bhan, Central Excise Act, Central Excise Act with Section 11A, Central Excise Act with Section 4(4)(c), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act with Section 3(a), Drugs and Cosmetics Act with Section 3(h), Judges, V.S. Sirpurkar

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 8, 2008 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Are products containing Ayurvedic ingredients but sold as cosmetics truly medicines under the eyes of the law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this complex question in a dispute over excise duties levied on Ishaan

Supreme Court Classifies Ayurvedic Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ishaan Research Lab (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Merit in Admissions: Mahatma Gandhi University vs. Gis Jose (2008)

/ Admission Rules, Ashok Bhan, Education Law, Judges, University Regulations, V.S. Sirpurkar

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 8, 2008 Case Citation: SLP (C) No. 3569 of 2007 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar; Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Should educational institutions compromise on admission criteria to accommodate students? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question

Supreme Court Upholds Merit in Admissions: Mahatma Gandhi University vs. Gis Jose (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the conditions for invoking extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act in duty evasion cases: Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (07 August 2006)

/ Ashok Bhan, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 28, Duty Evasion, Judges, Markandey Katju

Date of the Judgment: 07 August 2006 Citation: [Not Available in Source Text] Judges: Ashok Bhan, J. and Markandey Katju, J. When can customs authorities use a longer period to demand unpaid duties? The Supreme Court addressed this important question in the case of Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs. The core

Supreme Court clarifies the conditions for invoking extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act in duty evasion cases: Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (07 August 2006) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside Karnataka High Court order on simultaneous trials in misappropriation case: State of Karnataka vs. Annegowda (2006)

/ Ashok Bhan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 242, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 468, Judges, Markandey Katju

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13/07/2006 Citation: Appeal (crl.) 759 of 2006 Judges: Ashok Bhan & Markandey Katju Is it permissible for a High Court to direct a Trial Court to hold trials and record evidence in multiple cases simultaneously against the same accused? This question was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in

Supreme Court sets aside Karnataka High Court order on simultaneous trials in misappropriation case: State of Karnataka vs. Annegowda (2006) Read Post »

Title: Supreme Court affirms title by adverse possession in property dispute: Tej Narain vs. Shanti Swaroop Bohre (2004)

/ Adverse Possession, Ashok Bhan, Judges, Limitation Act, Limitation Act with Article 65, Property Law, S.H. Kapadia

Date of the Judgment: 28/09/2004 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Ashok Bhan and S.H. Kapadia Can continuous possession of a property for over 12 years grant ownership, even without legal title? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Tej Narain vs.

Title: Supreme Court affirms title by adverse possession in property dispute: Tej Narain vs. Shanti Swaroop Bohre (2004) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles rights of Transferee Landlord to recover Arrears of Rent in Eviction Cases: Sheikh Noor & Anr. vs. Sheikh G.S. Ibrahim (Dead) By Lrs. (04 August 2003)

/ Arrears of Rent, Ashok Bhan, Eviction, Judges, R.C. Lahoti, Rent Control Law, Rights of Transferee, Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, Transfer of Property Act

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 04 August 2003 Citation: 2003 Supp(2) SCR 204 Judges: R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan Can a new landlord, who has purchased a property, evict a tenant for not paying rent that was due to the previous owner? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a case concerning

Supreme Court settles rights of Transferee Landlord to recover Arrears of Rent in Eviction Cases: Sheikh Noor & Anr. vs. Sheikh G.S. Ibrahim (Dead) By Lrs. (04 August 2003) Read Post »

Scroll to Top