Judges

Supreme Court Decides Compensation for Land Acquisition Based on Fruit-Bearing Tree Income: Ismail Hushen Ghanchi vs. National Highways Authority of India (2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Land Acquisition Act, 1984 with Section 28, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation for land acquired, specifically concerning the valuation of fruit-bearing trees. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Ismail Hushen Ghanchi vs. National Highways Authority of India [Judgment Date]: 14 November 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14 November 2017 Citation: (Not Available) Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J. When […]

Supreme Court Decides Compensation for Land Acquisition Based on Fruit-Bearing Tree Income: Ismail Hushen Ghanchi vs. National Highways Authority of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Shops at Appellants’ Risk: Om Prakash Dhabai vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

/ Allotment Letter dated 6.5.1997, Allotment of Land, Civil Law, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 14, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a court order the allotment of land despite potential conflicts with a master plan? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the allotment of shop spaces. The Court allowed the

Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Shops at Appellants’ Risk: Om Prakash Dhabai vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2017)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi

Can a High Court cancel a bail order granted by a Sessions Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a violent assault and murder. The court examined whether the Sessions Court had properly considered all relevant factors when granting bail to the accused. This case highlights the importance

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Entry Tax set-off for Oil Companies in Bihar: Indian Oil Corporation vs. State of Bihar (2017)

/ Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993, Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Tax Law, Tax Law with Section 3(2)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether oil companies are eligible for a set-off of Value Added Tax (VAT) against Entry Tax paid on petroleum products when the VAT is levied at the point of sale by other oil marketing companies (OMCs). CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies Entry Tax set-off for Oil Companies in Bihar: Indian Oil Corporation vs. State of Bihar (2017) Read Post »

Caveatable Interest Clarified: Supreme Court Decision in Probate Case: Yash Vardhan Mall vs. Tejash Doshi (2017) INSC 940

/ Arun Mishra, Caveatable Interest, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Probate Law, Probate Law with Rule 25, Rules of The High Court At Calcutta (Original Side), 1914

Can an executor of a prior will challenge a subsequent will? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case regarding probate and caveatable interest. This case clarifies the rights of an executor of a previous will to contest a later will. The judgment was delivered by Justices Arun Mishra and L.

Caveatable Interest Clarified: Supreme Court Decision in Probate Case: Yash Vardhan Mall vs. Tejash Doshi (2017) INSC 940 Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a central statute pending before a High Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court when a similar challenge is already pending before it. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Transfer Petition Case Name: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Compensation Case: State of Punjab vs. Bhagta (2017)

/ Compensation for Land Acquisition, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the compensation awarded by the Reference Court without proper analysis. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Bhagta (D) Through Lrs & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 November 2017 Can a High Court uphold a compensation award without discussing the basis

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Compensation Case: State of Punjab vs. Bhagta (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in attempted murder case: State of Uttarakhand vs. Jairnail Singh (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the Trial Court’s conviction based on discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence in an attempted murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: State of Uttarakhand vs. Jairnail Singh Judgment Date: November 13, 2017 Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 945 Judges: R.K.

Supreme Court overturns conviction in attempted murder case: State of Uttarakhand vs. Jairnail Singh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Elderly Plaintiff to Testify Via Commission: Prasadi Devi vs. Nagar Palika (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure Code, Commission, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Evidence, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an elderly and illiterate plaintiff can be allowed to present their evidence through a commission at their residence. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Prasadi Devi vs. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopur Judgment Date: 13 November 2017 Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 987 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar

Supreme Court Allows Elderly Plaintiff to Testify Via Commission: Prasadi Devi vs. Nagar Palika (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Encroachment Disqualification under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil (2017)

/ Election Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Local Body Elections, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(j-3), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 with Section 53, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a family member of the original encroacher can be disqualified under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. CASE TYPE: Election Law Case Name: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil Judgment Date: 13 November 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 977. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench of

Supreme Court clarifies Encroachment Disqualification under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017)

/ Amendment of Plaint, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. This was a two-judge bench. Can a High Court summarily dismiss a case without addressing the merits? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the amendment of a plaint. The core

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Auction for Mumbai Land Dispute: Jaykrishna Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Development Control Regulations, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, Land Auction, Navin Sinha, Public Procurement, Ranjan Gogoi, Real Estate Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government body can privately negotiate the sale of public land after a public auction process has commenced and a change in land use has occurred. CASE TYPE: Civil (Land Auction Dispute) Case Name: Jaykrishna Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [Judgment Date]: November 13, 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Auction for Mumbai Land Dispute: Jaykrishna Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top