R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Decides Compensation for Land Acquisition Based on Fruit-Bearing Tree Income: Ismail Hushen Ghanchi vs. National Highways Authority of India (2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Land Acquisition Act, 1984 with Section 28, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation for land acquired, specifically concerning the valuation of fruit-bearing trees. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Ismail Hushen Ghanchi vs. National Highways Authority of India [Judgment Date]: 14 November 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14 November 2017 Citation: (Not Available) Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J. When […]

Supreme Court Decides Compensation for Land Acquisition Based on Fruit-Bearing Tree Income: Ismail Hushen Ghanchi vs. National Highways Authority of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Shops at Appellants’ Risk: Om Prakash Dhabai vs. State of Rajasthan (2017)

/ Allotment Letter dated 6.5.1997, Allotment of Land, Civil Law, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 14, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a court order the allotment of land despite potential conflicts with a master plan? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the allotment of shop spaces. The Court allowed the

Supreme Court Orders Allotment of Shops at Appellants’ Risk: Om Prakash Dhabai vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2017)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi

Can a High Court cancel a bail order granted by a Sessions Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a violent assault and murder. The court examined whether the Sessions Court had properly considered all relevant factors when granting bail to the accused. This case highlights the importance

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Compensation Case: State of Punjab vs. Bhagta (2017)

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

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the compensation awarded by the Reference Court without proper analysis. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Bhagta (D) Through Lrs & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 November 2017 Can a High Court uphold a compensation award without discussing the basis

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Compensation Case: State of Punjab vs. Bhagta (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Encroachment Disqualification under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil (2017)

/ Election Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Local Body Elections, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 with Section 14(1)(j-3), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 with Section 53, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a family member of the original encroacher can be disqualified under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. CASE TYPE: Election Law Case Name: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil Judgment Date: 13 November 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 977. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench of

Supreme Court clarifies Encroachment Disqualification under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017)

/ Amendment of Plaint, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. This was a two-judge bench. Can a High Court summarily dismiss a case without addressing the merits? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the amendment of a plaint. The core

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Employee Transfer Rules: Vijay Kamble Case (2017)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 with Section 3, Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 with Section 4(5), R. Banumathi, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Inter-district transfer of government employees and its impact on promotion opportunities. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Vijay S/O Wamanrao Kamble v. Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Mali & Ors. Judgment Date: November 7, 2017 Can a government employee’s inter-district transfer affect the promotion chances of others in the new district? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Upholds Employee Transfer Rules: Vijay Kamble Case (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Appointments Based on Incorrect Category: Amol vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Appointment, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Public Employment, R. Banumathi, Reservation, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: November 7, 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi Can an appointment be valid if it was offered under a wrong category? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning appointments to the post of Krishi Sevak in Maharashtra. The court

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Appointments Based on Incorrect Category: Amol vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Ineligible Appointments: Shankar vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Appointment, Eligibility, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mistake of Fact, R. Banumathi, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appointments offered to candidates were valid despite their ineligibility based on merit. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Shankar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Judgment Date: 07 November 2017 Date of the Judgment: 07 November 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 7940/2010 Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Ineligible Appointments: Shankar vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances land compensation with compound interest: Madhusudan Kabra vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

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

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Judgment Date]: November 6, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 973 Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. How should land compensation

Supreme Court enhances land compensation with compound interest: Madhusudan Kabra vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs reference to Labour Court despite delay: Daler Khan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017)

/ Delay in Approaching Court, Judges, Judicial Consistency, Kurian Joseph, Labour Law, R. Banumathi, Reference to Labour Court

Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 934 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a delay in approaching the court be a ground to deny a case from being referred to the Labour Court? The Supreme Court in this case addressed this question and directed the State of Himachal Pradesh

Supreme Court directs reference to Labour Court despite delay: Daler Khan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Graduation Requirement for Forest Guard Promotions: Maharashtra Forest Guards vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, Promotions, R. Banumathi, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a rule requiring a graduate degree to participate in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others Judgment Date: November 3, 2017 Date

Supreme Court Strikes Down Graduation Requirement for Forest Guard Promotions: Maharashtra Forest Guards vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top