R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Maya Devi (D) Through LRs & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Judgment Date: 25 January 2018 Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018 Citation: (2018) […]

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Dashrath vs. State of Chhattisgarh (23 January 2018)

/ Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Murder, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal, Unlawful Assembly, Vicarious Liability

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Dashrath vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) Date of the Judgment: 23 January 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 23 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a group of individuals be held liable for murder if they share a common intention, even if not all directly inflicted the fatal

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Dashrath vs. State of Chhattisgarh (23 January 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Murder Case Due to Procedural Errors: Issac vs. Ronald Cheriyan (2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 386, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Murder Case Due to Procedural Errors: Issac vs. Ronald Cheriyan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in ordering a retrial due to procedural errors in the original trial. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Issac @ Kishor vs. Ronald Cheriyan and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 23 January 2018 Date

Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Murder Case Due to Procedural Errors: Issac vs. Ronald Cheriyan (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even if they were acquitted, and whether courts can substitute their views for the committee’s decision. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Police Recruitment, R. Banumathi, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even after acquittal, for the post of constable in the police force. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Criminal

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Screening Committee can deny appointment to candidates with a criminal history, despite acquittal, for the post of constable. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a police force reject candidates for a constable

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018)

/ Burden of Proof, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence of murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar. [Judgment Date]: January 8,

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Convictions in Deadly Mob Attack Case: Joseph vs. State (2017) INSC 1094

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for the acts of other members. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Joseph vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police [Judgment Date]: 14 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1094 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J. (authored the

Supreme Court Modifies Convictions in Deadly Mob Attack Case: Joseph vs. State (2017) INSC 1094 Read Post »

Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of ‘Royal Orchid’ Registration in Class 42: Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. vs. Kamat Hotels (2017)

/ Deceptive Similarity, Intellectual Property Law, Judges, Prior Use, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Registration of Trademark, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trademark Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the trademark ‘Royal Orchid’ can be registered in Class 42, concerning hotel services, given a prior registration of ‘Orchid’ in the same class by another party. CASE TYPE: Intellectual Property (Trademark) Case Name: Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. vs. Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 14 December 2017 Introduction Date of

Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of ‘Royal Orchid’ Registration in Class 42: Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. vs. Kamat Hotels (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Based on Possession: Sunkamma vs. S. Pushparaj (2017)

/ Civil Law, General Power of Attorney, Injunction, Judges, Possession, Property Law, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal, Suits, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a permanent injunction can be granted based on possession of property supported by a General Power of Attorney, even without a registered sale deed. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Law) Case Name: Sunkamma (D) by LRs. vs. S. Pushparaj (D) by LRs. Judgment Date: 14 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 December

Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Based on Possession: Sunkamma vs. S. Pushparaj (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 313, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of eye witness testimony and ballistic evidence in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir and Anr. Judgment Date: 13 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1048 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can inconsistencies in

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top