Ashok Bhushan

Supreme Court Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty on Stainless Steel Imports: Commissioner of Customs vs. Mascot International (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Anti-Dumping Duty, Ashok Bhushan, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Notification 86/2011-Cus, Customs Act, 1962 with Notification No. 14/2010-Cus., Customs Law, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of anti-dumping duty on imported stainless steel flat products based on width specifications and tolerance limits. CASE TYPE: Customs Law/ Anti-Dumping Duty Case Name: Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nhava Sheva vs. M/s. Mascot International [Judgment Date]: July 3, 2017 Date of the Judgment: July 3, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 606 Judges: A.K. […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty on Stainless Steel Imports: Commissioner of Customs vs. Mascot International (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Kerala’s Medical Admission Policy: Non-Keralites’ Eligibility Challenged (24 August 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Medical Admissions, Minority Institutions

Can a state government prioritize its residents for medical college admissions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning admissions to medical colleges in Kerala. This case highlights the tension between state-level preferences and the rights of non-residents to access education. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices

Supreme Court Upholds Kerala’s Medical Admission Policy: Non-Keralites’ Eligibility Challenged (24 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Market Fee Liability on Agricultural Produce: Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Market Fees, Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963, Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 with Section 17, Sale and agreement to sell, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 19, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 4

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of when a sale of goods is considered to have taken place within a market area for the purpose of levying market fees. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Agricultural Market Regulation Case Name: M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment Date: June 9, 2017 Date of the Judgment: June 9,

Supreme Court Clarifies Market Fee Liability on Agricultural Produce: Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) Read Post »

Aadhaar-PAN Link: Supreme Court Upholds Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (9 June 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Aadhaar Act, 2016, Aadhaar Act, 2016 with Section 3, Aadhaar Act, 2016 with Section 7, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Fundamental Rights, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 139AA, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: The constitutional validity of making Aadhaar mandatory for PAN and income tax returns. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 9 June 2017 Introduction Citation: This judgment is not yet reported in the official INSC format. Judges: The judgment was delivered by

Aadhaar-PAN Link: Supreme Court Upholds Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (9 June 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case based on circumstantial evidence: Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 374, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 101, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 309, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder, or if the death was a suicide. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan Judgment Date: 09 June 2017 Date of the Judgment: 09 June 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 545 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case based on circumstantial evidence: Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in Haryana hooch tragedy case: State of Haryana vs. Krishan & Anr. (2017) INSC 488

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 218, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 226, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Punjab Excise Act, 1914, Punjab Excise Act, 1914 with Section 61(1)(a)

LEGAL ISSUE: Criminal liability for sale of spurious liquor leading to death and grievous injury. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: State of Haryana vs. Krishan & Anr. Judgment Date: June 09, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: June 09, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 488 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored by A.K.

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in Haryana hooch tragedy case: State of Haryana vs. Krishan & Anr. (2017) INSC 488 Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on institutional preference and in-service doctor benefits: Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) INSC 489

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Medical Council of India Act, 1956, Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 with Regulation 9(iv)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether institutional preference in Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University and service benefits for doctors should be restricted to those who graduated from within the State of Uttar Pradesh. CASE TYPE: Education and Service Law Case Name: Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: June 7,

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on institutional preference and in-service doctor benefits: Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) INSC 489 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Sudha Renukaiah & Ors. vs. State of A.P. (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s order of acquittal in a double murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sudha Renukaiah & Ors. vs. State of A.P. Judgment Date: 13 April 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 367 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J.,

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Sudha Renukaiah & Ors. vs. State of A.P. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Kidnapping for Ransom Case: Surajsinh vs. State of Gujarat (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 364(A), Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be upheld based on a child witness testimony and circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs. State of Gujarat. This case involved the kidnapping of a seven-year-old boy and subsequent demands for

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Kidnapping for Ransom Case: Surajsinh vs. State of Gujarat (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges in Financial Dispute Case: Vineet Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 376(d), Judges, Offences Against Women

Date of the Judgment: March 31, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 287 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored the judgment) Can a criminal case, specifically one involving serious charges like rape, be quashed if it appears to be a retaliatory measure in a financial dispute? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges in Financial Dispute Case: Vineet Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2017) Read Post »

Amalgamation and Tax Liability: Supreme Court clarifies treatment of waived interest under Section 41(1) and 72A of Income Tax Act: M/s. McDowell & Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2017) INSC 181 (09 March 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Amalgamation and Tax Liability, Ashok Bhushan, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 41(1), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 72A, Judges

Can a company that takes over a sick company through amalgamation also inherit the tax liabilities of the sick company, especially when it benefits from tax exemptions? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined the interplay between Section 41(1) and Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case revolves around whether

Amalgamation and Tax Liability: Supreme Court clarifies treatment of waived interest under Section 41(1) and 72A of Income Tax Act: M/s. McDowell & Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2017) INSC 181 (09 March 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Ownership in Land Dispute: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors (2017)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Declaration of Ownership, Judges, Non-Joinder of Parties, Property Law, Ranjan Gogoi, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 34

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors Judgment Date: 10 February 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Ownership in Land Dispute: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top