Ranjan Gogoi

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 Modifies Mining Cap in Karnataka: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Intergenerational Equity, Judges, Mineral Policy, Mining Cap, Mining Law, Mining Regulation, Navin Sinha, Public Interest Litigation, Ranjan Gogoi, Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan, Supreme Court Judgments, Supreme Court of India

LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of mining production caps. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to environmental and mining regulation. Case Name: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 December 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 1037 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Abhay Manohar

Supreme Court Modifies Mining Cap in Karnataka: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya vs. State of Karnataka (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Rape Case, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction: Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8 December 2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 450, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(2)(v)

Date of the Judgment: 8 December 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J. and R. Banumathi, J. Can a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be upheld if the prosecution fails to prove that the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Rape Case, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction: Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Originally Inhabitants of Assam” in NRC: Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, Citizenship Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, National Register of Citizens (NRC), Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Can the term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” create a superior class of citizens during the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. This case clarifies that the NRC is solely based on citizenship, not on whether someone is an original inhabitant

Supreme Court Clarifies “Originally Inhabitants of Assam” in NRC: Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Release in Motor Accident Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar (2017)

/ Civil Procedure, Compensation Release, Court Orders, Judges, Motor Accident Law, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the location of deposited compensation for release to the claimant. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. [Judgment Date]: December 1, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: December 1, 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon’ble

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Release in Motor Accident Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Agricultural Laborer’s Death in Road Accident: Laxmidhar Nayak vs. Jugal Kishore Behera (2017)

/ Compensation, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Second Schedule, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation in a motor accident claim, specifically concerning the income of a deceased agricultural laborer and the inclusion of household work in assessing compensation. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Claim Case Name: Laxmidhar Nayak and Ors. vs. Jugal Kishore Behera and Ors. Judgment Date: November 28, 2017 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Agricultural Laborer’s Death in Road Accident: Laxmidhar Nayak vs. Jugal Kishore Behera (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies No-Fault Liability Under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. (24 November 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Insurance Law, Judges, Motor Accident Claims, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 140, Navin Sinha, No-Fault Liability, Ranjan Gogoi, Section 163A

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an insurer can raise a defense of negligence in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Claims Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. Judgment Date: 24 November 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court Clarifies No-Fault Liability Under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. (24 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Auction for Mumbai Land Dispute: Jaykrishna Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Development Control Regulations, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, Land Auction, Navin Sinha, Public Procurement, Ranjan Gogoi, Real Estate Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government body can privately negotiate the sale of public land after a public auction process has commenced and a change in land use has occurred. CASE TYPE: Civil (Land Auction Dispute) Case Name: Jaykrishna Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [Judgment Date]: November 13, 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Auction for Mumbai Land Dispute: Jaykrishna Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Auction for Mumbai Land Dispute: Jaykrishna Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Development Control Regulations, Development Control Regulations with DCR Regulation 33(5), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114(e), Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government body can privately negotiate the settlement of land after a public auction process has begun. CASE TYPE: Land auction dispute. Case Name: Jaykrishna Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. Judgment Date: 13 November 2017 Can a government body bypass a public auction and privately settle land with a

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Auction for Mumbai Land Dispute: Jaykrishna Industries vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Mortgage Validity, Overturns High Court Order in Property Sale Dispute

/ Judges, Mortgage Law, Mortgage Validity, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rights of Mortgagee, Rights of Mortgagor, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 61, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 65A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 67A

Can a High Court invalidate a property sale based on a belated challenge to the mortgage’s validity? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that had set aside a sale certificate. The case involved a dispute over a property sale where the validity of the underlying mortgage was

Supreme Court Upholds Mortgage Validity, Overturns High Court Order in Property Sale Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Mortgage Validity, Overturns High Court in SBI vs. Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao (2017)

/ Judges, Mortgage Law, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 61, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 65A

Can a mortgagor’s waiver of rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, invalidate a mortgage if not registered? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case concerning a loan dispute. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, upholding the validity of the mortgage. This case highlights the importance of

Supreme Court Upholds Mortgage Validity, Overturns High Court in SBI vs. Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top