Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Market Expansion Despite Procedural Lapses: Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. N. Krishnappa (2017) INSC 372 (17 April 2017)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6(1), Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Can a land acquisition be upheld even with procedural errors? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition for a market expansion. The Court acknowledged procedural infirmities but upheld the acquisition, emphasizing the larger public interest. This case highlights the balance between procedural compliance and public benefit in land […]

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Market Expansion Despite Procedural Lapses: Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. N. Krishnappa (2017) INSC 372 (17 April 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Ownership in Land Dispute: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors (2017)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Declaration of Ownership, Judges, Non-Joinder of Parties, Property Law, Ranjan Gogoi, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 34

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors Judgment Date: 10 February 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Ownership in Land Dispute: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Uphaar Tragedy Case: Fine Imposed Instead of Additional Jail Time

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 65, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Affecting the Human Body, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a sentence of imprisonment can be substituted with a fine, and the extent of punishment for offences under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal and Another Judgment Date: 9th February 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Uphaar Tragedy Case: Fine Imposed Instead of Additional Jail Time 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 »

Supreme Court on Freebies: S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2013)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Corrupt Practices, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Rights, Judges, P. Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 123

Date of the Judgment: July 5, 2013 Citation: 2013 INSC 470 Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can political parties promising free goods influence voters unfairly? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case about the distribution of free items by political parties in Tamil Nadu. The court examined if such

Supreme Court on Freebies: S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification for False Caste Certificate in Municipal Elections: Kalpana Dilip Bahirat vs. Pune Municipal Corp. (2013)

/ A.K. Patnaik, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 243ZG, Judges, Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 with Section 10, Municipal Law, Municipal Law with Section 16, Municipal Law with Section 5B, Ranjan Gogoi

Date of the Judgment: June 27, 2013Citation: (2013) INSC 499Judges: A.K. Patnaik, J. and Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can a municipal corporation declare an election void if a candidate submits a false caste certificate? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Pune Municipal Corporation. The court upheld the disqualification of

Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification for False Caste Certificate in Municipal Elections: Kalpana Dilip Bahirat vs. Pune Municipal Corp. (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies pension eligibility for municipal employees: Sanchari Devi & Ors. vs. Ara Municipal Corporation & Ors. (2013) INSC 467 (25 June 2013)

/ A.K. Patnaik, Employee Rights, Judges, Pension Benefits, Pension Law, Provident Fund, Ranjan Gogoi, Retirement, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: 25 June 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 467 Judges: A.K. Patnaik, J. and Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can a municipal corporation deny pension benefits to its employees by delaying the implementation of pension rules? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants

Supreme Court clarifies pension eligibility for municipal employees: Sanchari Devi & Ors. vs. Ara Municipal Corporation & Ors. (2013) INSC 467 (25 June 2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies property sale order in Specific Performance Case: Satya Jain vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (2013) INSC 371 (8 May 2013)

/ Civil Law, Judges, Modification of Judgments, P. Sathasivam, Property Law, Ranjan Gogoi, Review of Judgments, Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Supreme Court Rules, 1966

Date of the Judgment: 8 May 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 371 Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can a court modify its final order after it has been passed? The Supreme Court addressed this question when it was asked to clarify its earlier order regarding the sale of a property. This case involves a

Supreme Court clarifies property sale order in Specific Performance Case: Satya Jain vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (2013) INSC 371 (8 May 2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Section Officers: B. Rugmini Amma vs. B.S. Nirmala Kumari (2013)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, H.L. Gokhale, Judges, Promotion Rules, Ranjan Gogoi, Service Law, Service Law with Government Orders

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 318 Judges: H.L. Gokhale, J. and Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can a government order clarifying promotion rules unintentionally create new preferences? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions of typists to Section Officers in the Kerala Administrative Secretariat. The

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Section Officers: B. Rugmini Amma vs. B.S. Nirmala Kumari (2013) Read Post »

Scroll to Top