Date of the Judgment: May 06, 2025 The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s order to summon an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for abetment to suicide. This case, Harjinder Singh vs. The State […]
Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 605 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI; B.R. Gavai, J.; Sanjay Kumar, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.; K.V. Viswanathan, J. (authored a separate judgment) Can Indian courts modify an arbitral award, or are they limited to setting it aside? The Supreme Court of India addressed this
Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 564 Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a landlord evict a tenant to use the property for his own business, even if the tenant has been there for a very long time? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case
Date of the Judgment: April 7, 2025 Judges: Sanjay Kumar, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a regulatory body like SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) pass multiple orders on the same issue after an initial order has already been implemented? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving
Date of the Judgment: April 01, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 419 Judges: B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, K.V. Viswanathan When can a landowner challenge land acquisition after possession is taken? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving land acquisition for development in Sonipat, Haryana. The Court examined the validity of
Introduction Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 306 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a laundry service be considered a factory under the Factories Act, 1948? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the State of Goa and a laundry service owner, Namita
Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 266 Judges: B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, K.V. Viswanathan The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a case involving a large-scale fraud committed through fake Telegraphic Transfers (TTs) at a Vijaya Bank branch in Maharashtra. The central question was whether the accused, Nandkumar Babulal Soni,
Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21st February, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 256 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a medical aspirant be denied admission solely based on the percentage of disability, without a proper assessment of their functional capabilities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Anmol
Date of the Judgment: February 14, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 215 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar J., K.V. Viswanathan J. When is a mistake in a government contract bid considered a genuine error? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a significant infrastructure project. The court examined whether
Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 116 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a conviction for murder be upheld based on circumstantial evidence alone? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a gruesome murder, ultimately acquitting the accused
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence (2025) INSC 116 Read Post »
Date of the Judgment: 27th January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 110 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can an employee be denied promotion and its benefits due to a flawed disciplinary process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case. The Court ruled in favor of an employee who was
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was justified, and what should be the appropriate sentence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Dowry Harassment Case Name: M. Venkateswaran vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police Judgment Date: 24 January
