Judges

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and CCE vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29 […]

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits accused in robbery case due to doubtful evidence: Anwar vs. State of Haryana (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 397, Judges, Offences Against Property, Rajesh Bindal

Supreme Court acquits accused in robbery case due to doubtful evidence: Anwar vs. State of Haryana (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a case of robbery and illegal possession of arms. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Anwar @ Bhugra v. State of Haryana [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court acquits accused in robbery case due to doubtful evidence: Anwar vs. State of Haryana (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Robbery Case Due to Doubtful Evidence: Anwar @ Bhugra vs. State of Haryana (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 397, Judges, Rajesh Bindal

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Robbery Case Due to Doubtful Evidence: Anwar @ Bhugra vs. State of Haryana (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a robbery case involving allegations of using weapons. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Anwar @ Bhugra vs. State of Haryana

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Robbery Case Due to Doubtful Evidence: Anwar @ Bhugra vs. State of Haryana (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion for Non-Payment of Dues in Cooperative Society Case: Geeta vs. Financial Commissioner (29 March 2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, Cooperative Society Law, Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 with Section 76, Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973, Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 with Rule 36(2), Expulsion of Member, Judges, Non-Payment of Dues, Rajesh Bindal

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion for Non-Payment of Dues in Cooperative Society Case: Geeta vs. Financial Commissioner (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a member of a cooperative society can be expelled for non-payment of dues related to flat construction. CASE TYPE: Cooperative Society Law Case Name: Geeta & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT Delhi &

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion for Non-Payment of Dues in Cooperative Society Case: Geeta vs. Financial Commissioner (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion of Cooperative Society Member for Non-Payment of Dues: Geeta & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner (29 March 2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, Cooperative Society Law, Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, Judges, Membership Expulsion, Non-Payment of Dues, Rajesh Bindal

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion of Cooperative Society Member for Non-Payment of Dues: Geeta & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner (2023) Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 316 Judges: Rajesh Bindal, J., Aravind Kumar, J. Can a member of a cooperative housing society be expelled for failing to pay their dues? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion of Cooperative Society Member for Non-Payment of Dues: Geeta & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Daughters’ Inheritance Rights in Ancestral Property Partition: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. vs. Charulata Sahu & Ors. (29 March 2023)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXIII Rule 3, Coparcenary Rights, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 6, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Daughters’ Inheritance Rights in Ancestral Property Partition LEGAL ISSUE: The central legal question revolves around the inheritance rights of daughters in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly concerning the impact of the 2005 amendment. CASE TYPE: Civil, Property Partition Case Name: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. vs. Charulata Sahu

Supreme Court Clarifies Daughters’ Inheritance Rights in Ancestral Property Partition: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. vs. Charulata Sahu & Ors. (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Daughters’ Equal Rights in Ancestral Property, Invalidates Prior Settlement: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo vs. Charulata Sahu (2023) INSC 3192 (29 March 2023)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXIII Rule 3, Coparcenary Rights, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 6, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Daughters’ Equal Rights in Ancestral Property, Invalidates Prior Settlement: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo vs. Charulata Sahu (2023) INSC 3192 (29 March 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, concerning the rights of daughters in ancestral property

Supreme Court Clarifies Daughters’ Equal Rights in Ancestral Property, Invalidates Prior Settlement: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo vs. Charulata Sahu (2023) INSC 3192 (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 7 Rule 11, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(a), Eviction, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Res Judicata, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata in Eviction Cases: Prem Kishore vs. Brahm Prakash (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second eviction petition is barred by res judicata when a prior petition was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) Case Name: Prem

Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 17, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 11, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(a), J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata in Eviction Cases: Prem Kishore vs. Brahm Prakash (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second eviction petition is barred by res judicata when a previous petition was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction) Case Name: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash

Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Possessory Rights in Property Dispute: Shivshankara vs. Vedavyasa (2023)

/ B.R. Gavai, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 27, Judges, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 6, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52

Supreme Court Upholds Possessory Rights in Property Dispute: Shivshankara vs. Vedavyasa (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior possession can be the basis of a claim for recovery of possession against a dispossessor who does not have a better title. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Shivshankara & Anr. vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char [Judgment Date]: March

Supreme Court Upholds Possessory Rights in Property Dispute: Shivshankara vs. Vedavyasa (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top