G.S. Singhvi

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for stay on eviction orders during appeals: State of Maharashtra vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. (27 August 2009)

/ Aftab Alam, B.N. Agrawal, Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Bombay Rent Act, 1947 with Section 13(1)(g), Bombay Rent Act, 1947 with Section 13(3)(a), Eviction Orders, G.S. Singhvi, Judges

Date of the Judgment: 27 August 2009 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Aftab Alam Can a High Court impose conditions, such as requiring a tenant to pay an amount exceeding the contractual rent, for staying an eviction order during the pendency […]

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for stay on eviction orders during appeals: State of Maharashtra vs. M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. (27 August 2009) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Housing Board House After Unjustified Exclusion: Umesh Pandey vs. Bihar State Housing Board (2009)

/ Administrative Law, B.N. Agrawal, Fairness, G.S. Singhvi, Judges, Natural Justice

Can a housing board deny allotment of a house based on a minor defect in an affidavit without giving an opportunity to rectify it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where an applicant was excluded from a housing lottery due to an alleged defect in the submitted affidavit. The Court

Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Housing Board House After Unjustified Exclusion: Umesh Pandey vs. Bihar State Housing Board (2009) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in dowry death case due to flawed charges: Basavaraja & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (22 September 2008)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 313, Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, G.S. Singhvi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, V.S. Sirpurkar

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., V.S. Sirpurkar, J., G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a conviction be upheld if the charges framed are inconsistent with the medical evidence presented? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Basavaraja & Ors. v. State of Karnataka.

Supreme Court overturns conviction in dowry death case due to flawed charges: Basavaraja & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (22 September 2008) Read Post »

Fake Driving License and Insurance Claims: Supreme Court Clarifies Liability in Consumer Cases (September 18, 2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Consumer Protection Law, G.S. Singhvi, Insurance Law, Judges, Own Damage Claims, Third-Party Claims

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 18, 2008 Judges: B.N. Agrawal, J. and G.S. Singhvi, J. When is an insurance company liable to pay a claim if the driver of the insured vehicle has a fake driving license? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a series of civil appeals, focusing on cases where

Fake Driving License and Insurance Claims: Supreme Court Clarifies Liability in Consumer Cases (September 18, 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing FIR: Lakhwant Singh vs. Jasbir Singh (2008)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, G.S. Singhvi, Inherent Powers of High Court, Judges

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 16, 2008 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2003 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a High Court quash a First Information Report (FIR) based on its inherent powers? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Lakhwant Singh v. Jasbir Singh, focusing on

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing FIR: Lakhwant Singh vs. Jasbir Singh (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar (2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Writ Petition, G.S. Singhvi, Judges

Date of the Judgment: September 15, 2008 Judges: Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice G.S. Singhvi Introduction When can a High Court refuse to hear a case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made observations on a case it should not have heard in

Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside orders in U.T. Chandigarh v. Manjit Singh (2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Judges

Date of the Judgment: September 11, 2008 Judges: Justices B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi In a brief order, the Supreme Court addressed appeals arising from a dispute involving U.T. Chandigarh and Manjit Singh. The central issue revolved around the validity of certain orders that were contested by both parties. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments,

Supreme Court sets aside orders in U.T. Chandigarh v. Manjit Singh (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Divorce Petition: Harmit Kaur vs. Jarnail Singh (2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Judges

Date of the Judgment: September 11, 2008 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice G.S. Singhvi Can a divorce petition be transferred to a different district for the convenience of the parties involved? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case

Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Divorce Petition: Harmit Kaur vs. Jarnail Singh (2008) Read Post »

Uphar Tragedy Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Orders Surrender in Criminal Appeal (2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, Delhi Cinematograph Act, 1952, Delhi Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 14, G.S. Singhvi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304-A, Judges, Offences Affecting Life

Date of the Judgment: September 10, 2008 Citation: [Citation not available in the provided text] Judges: Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice G.S. Singhvi Can individuals convicted of serious offenses, even if bailable, be denied bail based on their conduct after the initial grant of bail? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the

Uphar Tragedy Bail Cancellation: Supreme Court Orders Surrender in Criminal Appeal (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside eviction decree, recognizing firm as statutory tenant: Gautham Bhavan vs. Sakuntala Sahu (2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, Eviction, G.S. Singhvi, Judges, Property Law, Statutory Tenant, Tenancy

Date of the Judgment: September 05, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5516 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5500 of 2008) Judges: B.N. Agrawal, J. and G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a court disregard prior judgments establishing tenancy rights in an eviction suit? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a

Supreme Court sets aside eviction decree, recognizing firm as statutory tenant: Gautham Bhavan vs. Sakuntala Sahu (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order in Ex-Parte Decree Setting Aside Case: Pavan Sachdeva & Anr. vs. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. (01 September 2008)

/ Appellate Review, B.N. Agrawal, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX, Ex-parte Decree, G.S. Singhvi, Judges, Trial Court

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2008 Judges: B.N. Agrawal, J. and G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a High Court interfere with a Trial Court’s order that doesn’t show jurisdictional errors or material irregularities? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case regarding the setting aside of an ex-parte decree. The Supreme Court allowed the

Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order in Ex-Parte Decree Setting Aside Case: Pavan Sachdeva & Anr. vs. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. (01 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Section 498A IPC Despite Acquittal under Section 304B IPC: Dinesh Seth vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (18 August 2008)

/ Altamas Kabir, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 221, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 222, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 464, G.S. Singhvi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Offences Against Marriage

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 August 2008 Judges: Altamas Kabir, J. and G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a person be convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if they have been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC, especially when the charge under Section 498A IPC was not specifically framed? The

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Section 498A IPC Despite Acquittal under Section 304B IPC: Dinesh Seth vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (18 August 2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top