Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court settles Limitation Act applicability on appeals under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act: International Asset Reconstruction Company vs. The Official Liquidator (24 October 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 24, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 30

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 942 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can the delay in filing an appeal against a Recovery Officer’s order under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? This […]

Supreme Court settles Limitation Act applicability on appeals under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act: International Asset Reconstruction Company vs. The Official Liquidator (24 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Mortgage vs. Sale with Repurchase Option: Suraj Narain Kapoor vs. Pradeep Kumar (2017)

/ Judges, Mortgage by Conditional Sale, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Sale with Option to Repurchase, Transfer of Property Act, Transfer of Property Act with Section 58(c)

Date of the Judgment: October 24, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 834 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can a document that includes a clause for repurchase of property be considered a mortgage, or is it simply a sale with an option to buy back? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question

Supreme Court Clarifies Mortgage vs. Sale with Repurchase Option: Suraj Narain Kapoor vs. Pradeep Kumar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 16, Bar Council of India, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Senior Advocates

LEGAL ISSUE: Establishing a fair and transparent process for designating Senior Advocates. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General And Ors. Judgment Date: 12 October 2017 Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 837 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman,

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Article 14, Constitution of India, Article 18, Constitution of India, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Legal Profession, Navin Sinha, Order IV, Supreme Court Rules 2013, Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules 2013, Section 16, Advocates Act, 1961, Senior Advocate Designation, Supreme Court Rules

Can the process of designating Senior Advocates be made more objective and transparent? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, a landmark judgment that has reshaped the criteria and procedure for designating Senior Advocates. This case, decided on October 12, 2017, not only examined the

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017) Read Post »

Delhi Tax Amnesty Scheme: Supreme Court Decides on Designated Authority’s Powers in Tax Compliance Cases (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Tax Assessment, Tax Law, Tax Law with Section 107 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Designated Authority under the Delhi Tax Compliance Achievement Scheme, 2013, had the power to issue show cause notices for reopening assessments. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Ors. vs. M/S Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. Judgment Date: 4 October 2017 Can a tax authority, specifically an

Delhi Tax Amnesty Scheme: Supreme Court Decides on Designated Authority’s Powers in Tax Compliance Cases (2017) Read Post »

Delhi Tax Amnesty Scheme: Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Designated Authority in Tax Dispute

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Delhi Tax Compliance Achievement Scheme, 2013, Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 with Section 107, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Additional Commissioner, as the designated authority, had the power to issue a show cause notice under Clause 8 of the Delhi Tax Compliance Achievement Scheme, 2013. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, specifically concerning the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Case Name: Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Ors. vs. M/S Ahluwalia

Delhi Tax Amnesty Scheme: Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Designated Authority in Tax Dispute Read Post »

Front-Running by Non-Intermediaries: Supreme Court Clarifies Securities Market Regulations (20 September 2017)

/ Front-Running, Judges, Market Manipulation, N. V. Ramana, Ranjan Gogoi, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003, Securities Law

Can individuals who are not intermediaries be held liable for front-running in the securities market? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a series of appeals, clarifying the scope of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003. This judgment provides crucial insights into

Front-Running by Non-Intermediaries: Supreme Court Clarifies Securities Market Regulations (20 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Non-Intermediary Front-Running” under SEBI Regulations: SEBI vs. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017)

/ Judges, N. V. Ramana, Ranjan Gogoi, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 with Regulation 4(1), Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities Law

Date of the Judgment: September 20, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 763 Judges: N. V. Ramana, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can individuals who are not intermediaries be held liable for front-running in the securities market? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a batch of appeals, clarifying the scope of the Securities and

Supreme Court Clarifies “Non-Intermediary Front-Running” under SEBI Regulations: SEBI vs. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) Read Post »

Haryana Sales Tax Act Revisional Powers: Supreme Court decides on validity after repeal in Tax Law (2017)

/ Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 with Section 40, Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 with Section 61, Judges, Navin Sinha, Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 with Section 4, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether revisional power under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 can be exercised after its repeal. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: The State of Haryana and Others vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Judgment Date: 15 September 2017 Can a state government use old tax laws to review past tax assessments after

Haryana Sales Tax Act Revisional Powers: Supreme Court decides on validity after repeal in Tax Law (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Sentence in Custodial Death Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Sanvlo Naik & Anr. (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Human Body, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused of the offense punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the sentence should be enhanced. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sanvlo Naik & Anr. Judgment Date: 7th September 2017

Supreme Court Enhances Sentence in Custodial Death Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Sanvlo Naik & Anr. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies mandatory sports broadcasting sharing: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2017)

/ Broadcasting Law, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 with Section 8, Cable Television Regulation, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Sports Broadcasting, Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, Sports Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of mandatory sports broadcasting signal sharing under the Sports Act, 2007 and its interplay with cable television regulations. CASE TYPE: Broadcasting Rights/Sports Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. Judgment Date: 22 August 2017 Introduction Can cable operators re-transmit sports broadcasts shared with

Supreme Court clarifies mandatory sports broadcasting sharing: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies concurrent sentencing for offences arising from single transaction: P.N. Mohanan Nair vs. State of Kerala (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 465, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 471, Judges, Navin Sinha, Prevention of Corruption Act, Prevention of Corruption Act with Section 13, Ranjan Gogoi

Can sentences for multiple offences arising from a single transaction run concurrently? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a government employee convicted of misappropriation. The court clarified the application of Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding concurrent sentencing. This judgment provides clarity on how sentences

Supreme Court clarifies concurrent sentencing for offences arising from single transaction: P.N. Mohanan Nair vs. State of Kerala (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top