Judges

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Pomegranate Trees in Land Acquisition Case: Nelatur Sampoornamma vs. Special Deputy Collector (2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for fruit-bearing trees in land acquisition cases. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Nelatur Sampoornamma vs. Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Telugu Ganga Project Judgment Date: July 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 19, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 664 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. (authored the […]

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Pomegranate Trees in Land Acquisition Case: Nelatur Sampoornamma vs. Special Deputy Collector (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Interest Payment in Land Allotment Case: Estate Officer, Punjab vs. Jagtar Singh (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contempt Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contempt jurisdiction can be used to adjudicate a dispute regarding interest on a refund. CASE TYPE: Land Allotment/Contempt of Court Case Name: The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority vs. Jagtar Singh and Ors. [Judgment Date]: July 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 19, 2017 Citation: Not

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Interest Payment in Land Allotment Case: Estate Officer, Punjab vs. Jagtar Singh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi, Sufficient Cause

Can a delay of 3671 days in filing an appeal be condoned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a land acquisition case. The Court considered whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay and also looked into the adequacy of compensation for fruit-bearing trees. This

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on eviction for parting with possession without consent: Bhairon Sahai vs. Bishamber Dayal (2017)

/ Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(b), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(4), Eviction of Tenant, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. A. Bobde

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a landlord can evict a tenant for parting with possession of the premises without the landlord’s consent. CASE TYPE: Rent Control Law. Case Name: Bhairon Sahai (D) through Lrs. vs. Bishamber Dayal (D) through Lrs. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 18 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court rules on eviction for parting with possession without consent: Bhairon Sahai vs. Bishamber Dayal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Further Inquiry on Compensation in Unfair Trade Practice Case: Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga vs. K.L. Suneja & Ors. (2017) INSC 640 (18 July 2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 with Section 12B, Unfair Trade Practices

Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 640 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi. This was a division bench. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Kurian Joseph. Can a builder be liable for interest on a refund amount when the payment was made but not

Supreme Court Directs Further Inquiry on Compensation in Unfair Trade Practice Case: Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga vs. K.L. Suneja & Ors. (2017) INSC 640 (18 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Relaxes Bail Condition in Criminal Case: Rabindranath Barik vs. State of Odisha (2017)

/ Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Criminal Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Modification of Bail Conditions, Modification of Bail Conditions, R. Banumathi, Security for Bail, Security for Bail

Can a court modify bail conditions after a chargesheet has been filed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, focusing on the financial security required for bail. This case highlights the court’s power to adjust bail conditions based on the specific circumstances and the overall security already in place.

Supreme Court Relaxes Bail Condition in Criminal Case: Rabindranath Barik vs. State of Odisha (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Representation of Unrecognised Unions in Industrial Disputes: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (2017)

/ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 36, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, R. Banumathi, Recognition of Trade Unions, Registration of Trade Unions, Representation of Unions, Trade Unions Act

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an unrecognized union can represent workers in industrial disputes when there is no recognized union. CASE TYPE: Industrial Dispute Case Name: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. and Anr. Judgment Date: 18 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9222 of 2017 [@ Special

Supreme Court Addresses Representation of Unrecognised Unions in Industrial Disputes: Hind Kamgar Sanghatana vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case: Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017)

/ Admissibility of Evidence, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 364A, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body, S. A. Bobde

Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2017 The Supreme Court of India, in a criminal appeal, addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence in a case involving abduction and murder. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the chain of circumstances presented. The

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case: Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Disposes Anticipatory Bail Appeal After Charge Sheet Filed in Criminal Case (2017)

/ Anticipatory Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

“`html LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an anticipatory bail application can be maintained after the filing of a charge sheet. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ram Naresh Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Judgment Date]: July 17, 2017 The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the question of whether an anticipatory bail application

Supreme Court Disposes Anticipatory Bail Appeal After Charge Sheet Filed in Criminal Case (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles promotion criteria based on seniority: M.Elangovan vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Promotions, R. Banumathi, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Rule Interpretation

Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi Can a cut-off date be applied to seniority-based promotions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning promotions within the postal service. The court clarified that for promotions based solely on

Supreme Court settles promotion criteria based on seniority: M.Elangovan vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 21 Rule 35, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 with Section 11(2)(b), Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 with Section 11(3), R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the eviction order passed by the Trial Court. CASE TYPE: Eviction/Rent Control Case Name: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim [Judgment Date]: 17 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 657 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes detention order for not specifying detention period: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Detention Order, Detention Period, Individual Liberties, Judges, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 with Section 3, N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant, Preventive Detention

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, must specify the period of detention. CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law Case Name: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra Judgment Date: July 17, 2017 Introduction Can a preventive detention order be valid if it does not specify the period

Supreme Court quashes detention order for not specifying detention period: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top