Supreme Court overturns discharge order in bribery case: State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) Date of the Judgment: April 13, 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 208 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can a High Court quash charges framed by a lower court in a corruption case, based on its own […]
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on High Court Interim Orders in Criminal Cases Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 203 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. Can a High Court issue a blanket order preventing police from taking any coercive action against an accused during an investigation? The
Supreme Court Upholds Preliminary Inquiry in Corruption Cases: Charansingh vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a preliminary inquiry is permissible before registering a First Information Report (FIR) in cases of alleged corruption by a public servant. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption Act Case Name: Charansingh vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Court Record Forgery Case: Naveen Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with forging court records. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Naveen Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Judgment Date: March 15, 2021 Date of the
Supreme Court clarifies the use of Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused: Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2021 Citation: Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc. (2021) INSC 142 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M. R. Shah, J. Can a trial court
Supreme Court Clarifies Liability Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for Individuals Date of the Judgment: 8 March 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 145 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M. R. Shah, J. Can a person be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 if a cheque issued by
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Nagabhushan vs. State of Karnataka (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in dowry death cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Dowry Death) Case Name: Nagabhushan vs. The State of Karnataka [Judgment Date]: March 8, 2021 Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1987 Murder Case: Dhirendra Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the testimonies of the witnesses, despite some contradictions. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu vs. State of Jharkhand [Judgment Date]:
Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Charges Against Wife in Employment Fraud Case Date of the Judgment: 01 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 167 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M.R. Shah, J. Can a person be charged with cheating when they did not directly induce someone to part with their money? The Supreme Court of
Supreme Court quashes FIR in contractual dispute: Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent FIR can be registered on the same set of facts and allegations when a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is already pending before a Magistrate. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Kapil
Supreme Court quashes FIR in contractual dispute: Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma (2021) Read Post »
Supreme Court Upholds 45-Day Limit for Written Statements in Consumer Cases: Daddy’s Builders vs. Manisha Bhargava (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether consumer forums have the power to condone delays beyond 45 days for filing written statements. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another Judgment Date:
Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions on Aadhaar Act as Money Bill Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 12 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (dissenting). This was a 4:1 majority decision, with Justice Khanwilkar writing the majority opinion and Justice Chandrachud dissenting.
