Judges

Supreme Court settles the requirement of notice under Section 80 of CPC when a public officer is a party for consequential relief: Ram Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2008)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Dalveer Bhandari, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Dispute, Revenue Department, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 29, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Dalveer Bhandari, J. Do you need to serve a government official with a notice before suing them, even if they’re only involved in a minor way? The Supreme Court of India clarified this issue in the case of […]

Supreme Court settles the requirement of notice under Section 80 of CPC when a public officer is a party for consequential relief: Ram Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence in Dowry Harassment Case: Balwant Singh vs. State of H.P. (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 113B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Offences Against Marriage

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 29, 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide in the case of Balwant Singh and Ors. vs. State of H.P. The central question revolved around the conviction of the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence in Dowry Harassment Case: Balwant Singh vs. State of H.P. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies seniority calculation: Ad-hoc service exclusion in State of Punjab vs. Ashwani Kumar (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994

Date of the Judgment: September 29, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C.) No.11711 of 2006) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Can ad-hoc services be counted for seniority? The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether ad-hoc services should be counted for seniority calculations.

Supreme Court clarifies seniority calculation: Ad-hoc service exclusion in State of Punjab vs. Ashwani Kumar (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order dismissing leave to appeal in acquittal case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manoj Kumar (29 September 2008)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 378, Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376/511, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Can a High Court dismiss an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal without providing reasons? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where the Himachal Pradesh High Court summarily dismissed

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order dismissing leave to appeal in acquittal case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manoj Kumar (29 September 2008) Read Post »

Surrogacy Regulations: Supreme Court addresses the need for legal framework in Baby Manji Yamada vs. Union of India (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 with Section 13, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 29, 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. In an era where reproductive technologies are rapidly evolving, the legal and ethical considerations surrounding surrogacy have become increasingly pertinent. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Baby Manji Yamada vs. Union of India, addressed the

Surrogacy Regulations: Supreme Court addresses the need for legal framework in Baby Manji Yamada vs. Union of India (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the scope of Unfair Trade Practice under MRTP Act in commercial disputes: Philips Medical Systems vs. Indian MRI Diagnostic (29 September 2008)

/ Altamas Kabir, Contract Law, Judges, Markandey Katju, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 with Section 36A, Unfair Trade Practice

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2008 Judges: Markandey Katju, J., Altamas Kabir, J. Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2461 of 2006, with C.A. 5889/2008 @ SLP (Civil) No. 6325 of 2006 When does a commercial disagreement become an unfair trade practice? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute between Philips

Supreme Court settles the scope of Unfair Trade Practice under MRTP Act in commercial disputes: Philips Medical Systems vs. Indian MRI Diagnostic (29 September 2008) Read Post »

From Murder to Culpable Homicide: Supreme Court Revisits Section 304, IPC in Bihari Rai vs. State of Bihar (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 145, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Right to Private Defense

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 26, 2008 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.862 of 2007) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the crime occurred during a sudden quarrel? The Supreme Court of

From Murder to Culpable Homicide: Supreme Court Revisits Section 304, IPC in Bihari Rai vs. State of Bihar (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court modifies conviction for Budhi Lal in culpable homicide case: Budhi Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand (26 September 2008)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 313, Culpable Homicide, Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Judges

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code be modified to Section 304 Part-I based on the factual scenario and manner of assault? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Budhi Lal v.

Supreme Court modifies conviction for Budhi Lal in culpable homicide case: Budhi Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand (26 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Labour Court’s Power in Declaring Workmen Permanent: U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. (26 September 2008)

/ Altamas Kabir, Industrial Disputes Act, Judges, Labour Law, Markandey Katju, Standing Orders, Workmen

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2008 Judges: Altamas Kabir, J., Markandey Katju, J. The central question in this case revolves around whether a Labour Court can declare seasonal workers as permanent employees, especially when their work’s nature appears continuous. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in an appeal concerning the U.P. State Sugar

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Labour Court’s Power in Declaring Workmen Permanent: U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. (26 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order for violating natural justice in a property dispute case: Prabha Mathur & Anr. vs. Pramod Aggarwal & Ors. (26 September 2008)

/ Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, C.K. Thakker, Civil Procedure, D.K. Jain, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 467, Judges, Natural Justice

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed whether a High Court can set aside orders of lower courts without providing an opportunity for all parties to be heard. This issue arose from a property dispute where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversed decisions made by lower

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order for violating natural justice in a property dispute case: Prabha Mathur & Anr. vs. Pramod Aggarwal & Ors. (26 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the jurisdiction to transfer suits between High Courts: Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree (2008)

/ C.K. Thakker, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 23, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 25, D.K. Jain, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 9, Judges

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 26, 2008 Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., D.K. Jain, J. Can a High Court transfer cases from a court subordinate to it to another court subordinate to a different High Court? The Supreme Court addressed this question in Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, concerning the jurisdiction and authority to transfer legal

Supreme Court settles the jurisdiction to transfer suits between High Courts: Durgesh Sharma vs. Jayshree (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside arbitrary rent increase in tenant eviction case: Sunil Kumar vs. Surendra Kumar Agrarwal (26 September 2008)

/ Interim Orders, Judges, Judicial Review, Landlord-Tenant Relationships, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, Property Law, R.V. Raveendran, Rent Control Regulations

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2008 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Can a High Court arbitrarily increase rent in an interim order during a tenant eviction case? The Supreme Court addressed this

Supreme Court sets aside arbitrary rent increase in tenant eviction case: Sunil Kumar vs. Surendra Kumar Agrarwal (26 September 2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top