Prafulla C. Pant

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Personal Effects” under Baggage Rules in a Customs Dispute: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017)

/ Baggage Rules, 1998, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 102, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 77, Customs Law, Judges, Personal Effects, Prafulla C. Pant, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “personal effects” under the Baggage Rules, 1998, specifically concerning the import of jewellery by tourists. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani Date of the Judgment: 18 August 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 716 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J. […]

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Personal Effects” under Baggage Rules in a Customs Dispute: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies cadre restructuring in BSF: Union of India vs. S. Ravichandran (2017)

/ Border Security Force, Cadre Restructuring, Cadre Review, Deepak Gupta, Government Orders, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant, Promotion, Service Law, Supersession of Orders

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior decision regarding cadre restructuring can be superseded by a later comprehensive review. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. S. Ravichandran & Ors. Date of the Judgment: 11 August 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 707 Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Prafulla C. Pant, J., Deepak Gupta,

Supreme Court clarifies cadre restructuring in BSF: Union of India vs. S. Ravichandran (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 »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of destruction of evidence: Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda vs. State of Gujarat (2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Prafulla C. Pant

Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 678 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Divided Opinion) Can mere silence and subsequent absconding be sufficient to convict a person for destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of destruction of evidence: Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda vs. State of Gujarat (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Land Dispute Case: Muttaicose @ Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017)

/ Criminal Law, Culpable Homicide, Deepak Gupta, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Murder, Offences Against Human Body, Prafulla C. Pant

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Muttaicose @ Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu Judgment Date: 03 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 597

Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Land Dispute Case: Muttaicose @ Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Acquits One Accused: State of Haryana vs. Bira @ Bhira (24 April 2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Human Body, Prafulla C. Pant

Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be partially accepted in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a murder. The Court upheld the conviction of two accused persons while acquitting the third. This judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. The bench comprised Justices

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Acquits One Accused: State of Haryana vs. Bira @ Bhira (24 April 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Importance of ACRs in Promotions: Sivanandi vs. Rajeev Kumar (2017)

/ Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 with Regulation 5, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant, Promotion, Service Law, Service Record

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) is a part of an officer’s service record and if delays in writing it can be grounds for ignoring it for promotion purposes. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: P. Sivanandi vs. Rajeev Kumar & Ors. Judgment Date: 2nd February 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 2nd

Supreme Court Clarifies the Importance of ACRs in Promotions: Sivanandi vs. Rajeev Kumar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Public Servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act for Bank Officials (23 February 2016)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 46A, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 409, Judges, Offences by Public Servants, Prafulla C. Pant, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 2(c), Public Duty, Ranjan Gogoi

Can officials of a private bank be considered “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving alleged corruption at Global Trust Bank. This judgment clarifies the scope of “public servant” definition, particularly in the context of banking regulations. The bench comprised Justices

Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Public Servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act for Bank Officials (23 February 2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Electricity Tariff Concessions: Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (29 January 2016)

/ Arun Mishra, Electricity Law, Electricity Law with Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978, Judges, Prafulla C. Pant, Promissory Estoppel, Ranjan Gogoi, Tariff Rates

Can a government revoke a promised concession on electricity tariffs? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving industrial units in Tamil Nadu. The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel does not prevent the government from withdrawing such concessions. This judgment clarifies the scope of government power over fiscal

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Electricity Tariff Concessions: Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (29 January 2016) Read Post »

Scroll to Top