M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to flawed investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 25

/ B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 154, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to flawed investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 25 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder was sustainable given the serious flaws in the investigation and contradictory evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ranvir Singh etc. vs. The State […]

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to flawed investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 25 Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Flawed Investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Flawed Investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of dying declarations and the role of the investigating officer in ensuring a fair trial. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ranvir Singh etc. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Judgment Date]: 12th January

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Flawed Investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to unreliable sole witness testimony: Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ B.R. Gavai, Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to unreliable sole witness testimony: Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of a single witness when that witness’s testimony is not wholly trustworthy, reliable, and cogent. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Vijay and Anr.

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to unreliable sole witness testimony: Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to unreliable witness testimony: Vijay and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ B.R. Gavai, Evidence Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Witness Testimony

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to unreliable witness testimony: Vijay and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 699 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary eyewitness’s testimony is inconsistent and

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to unreliable witness testimony: Vijay and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles appointment rules for Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (2022) INSC 1412 (12 December 2022)

/ Estoppel, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015, Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 with Rule 2, Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978, Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 with Rule 15, Waiting List

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Gram Panchayat Adhikari Appointments in Uttar Pradesh Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1412 Judges: M.R. Shah, J., and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a candidate who participated in a selection process, based on specific rules, later claim appointment based on a different set of rules? The

Supreme Court settles appointment rules for Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (2022) INSC 1412 (12 December 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Lucknow Development Authority vs. Mehdi Hasan (12 December 2022)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 30(2), M. R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Lucknow Development Authority vs. Mehdi Hasan LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse if possession is taken but compensation is not paid under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Lucknow Development Authority

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Lucknow Development Authority vs. Mehdi Hasan (12 December 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Nagpur Metro Rail Project Land Allotment: Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 with Section 39

Supreme Court Upholds Nagpur Metro Rail Project Land Allotment: Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can order the removal of a public project from land allotted to it, when the allottee is in possession and the previous lessee’s title is unclear due

Supreme Court Upholds Nagpur Metro Rail Project Land Allotment: Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Raw Material” Definition in Steel Manufacturing: State of Jharkhand vs. Linde India Ltd. (2 December 2022)

/ Bihar Finance Act, 1981, Bihar Finance Act, 1981 with Section 13(1)(b), Bihar Finance Act, 1981 with Section 6, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies “Raw Material” Definition in Steel Manufacturing: State of Jharkhand vs. Linde India Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether oxygen gas used in steel manufacturing qualifies as a “raw material” for concessional tax rates. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: State of Jharkhand and others vs. Linde India Limited and Another Judgment Date: 2

Supreme Court Clarifies “Raw Material” Definition in Steel Manufacturing: State of Jharkhand vs. Linde India Ltd. (2 December 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Land Acquisition Collector vs. Suresh B. Kapur (2022)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Land Acquisition Collector vs. Suresh B. Kapur (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if compensation is deposited in court but

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Land Acquisition Collector vs. Suresh B. Kapur (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for indigent suits: Solomon Selvaraj vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh (2 December 2022)

/ Cause of Action, Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 33, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 33 Rule 15A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 33 Rule 5, Indigent Suits, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Res Judicata

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for indigent suits: Solomon Selvaraj vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can reject an application to sue as an indigent person based on the merits of the suit, such as res judicata or lack of cause of action. CASE TYPE: Civil Procedure. Case Name: Solomon Selvaraj &

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for indigent suits: Solomon Selvaraj vs. Indirani Bhagawan Singh (2 December 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs High Court to Re-examine the Issue of Fake Pharmacists: Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (29 November 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M. R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh, Pharmacy Act, 1948, Pharmacy Law, Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015

Supreme Court directs High Court to Re-examine the Issue of Fake Pharmacists: Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the operation of hospitals and medical stores by unregistered or fake pharmacists. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Pharmacy Law Case

Supreme Court directs High Court to Re-examine the Issue of Fake Pharmacists: Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (29 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles limitation for rebate claims under Central Excise Act: Sansera Engineering vs. Deputy Commissioner (29 November 2022)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11B, Central Excise Rules, 2002 with Rule 18, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Rebate of Duty

Supreme Court settles limitation for rebate claims under Central Excise Act: Sansera Engineering vs. Deputy Commissioner (29 November 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Sansera

Supreme Court settles limitation for rebate claims under Central Excise Act: Sansera Engineering vs. Deputy Commissioner (29 November 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top