M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022)

/ Anti-Competitive Agreements, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 3, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 4, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Competition Act, 2002 applies to the tendering process for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents, specifically concerning allegations of bid rigging and cartelization. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Competition Commission of […]

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022)

/ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Insolvency Resolution Process, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 concerning the eligibility of a resolution applicant who has provided a guarantee to a creditor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022 The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed a critical question regarding the eligibility of resolution applicants under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Specifically, the court examined whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding the eligibility of a personal guarantor to submit a resolution plan. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC for Guarantors: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Specific Performance vs. Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 3

Supreme Court Decision on Specific Performance and Adverse Possession: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. Also, the question of adverse possession on a small portion of land when

Specific Performance vs. Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute (17 January 2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree of specific performance can be enforced against a bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Property Law/Civil Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute (17 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b)

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January 2022 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute Read Post »

Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court clarifies common intention in Jasdeep Singh vs State of Punjab (2022) INSC 14

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court on Section 34 IPC: Jasdeep Singh vs State of Punjab (2022) INSC 14 LEGAL ISSUE: Scope and application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding common intention in criminal acts. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu vs. State of Punjab [Judgment Date]: 7 January 2022 Date

Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court clarifies common intention in Jasdeep Singh vs State of Punjab (2022) INSC 14 Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 34 IPC in Culpable Homicide Case: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) INSC 23 (07 January 2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 34 IPC in Culpable Homicide Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of individuals under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for a crime committed by another can be sustained based on the evidence presented. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu vs. State of Punjab

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 34 IPC in Culpable Homicide Case: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) INSC 23 (07 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 34 IPC in a case of Culpable Homicide: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court on Section 34 of IPC: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases of culpable homicide. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu vs. State of Punjab [Judgment Date]: 07 January 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 07

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 34 IPC in a case of Culpable Homicide: Jasdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Mohan @Srinivas vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 384, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Mohan @Srinivas vs. State of Karnataka (2021) Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 732 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal of a murder case based on a different interpretation of the

Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Mohan @Srinivas vs. State of Karnataka (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows a defective affidavit to be cured in election petition: A. Manju vs. Prajwal Rev Anna (2021)

/ Affidavit, Corrupt Practices, Election Law, Election Petition, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 123, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 81, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 83, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court allows a defective affidavit to be cured in election petition: A. Manju vs. Prajwal Rev Anna (2021) Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 723 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can an election petition be dismissed simply because the petitioner did not submit an affidavit in

Supreme Court allows a defective affidavit to be cured in election petition: A. Manju vs. Prajwal Rev Anna (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top