S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court clarifies deductibility of employee contributions under Income Tax Act: Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (2022)

/ Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(24)(x), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 36(1)(va), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 43B, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of Employee Contributions Under Income Tax Act LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to provident funds and other welfare funds. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Case Name: Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Judgment […]

Supreme Court clarifies deductibility of employee contributions under Income Tax Act: Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to flawed evidence: Munikrishna vs. State (2022)

/ Confession, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 20(3), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to flawed evidence: Munikrishna vs. State (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of confessional statements made to police and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. vs. State by Ulsoor PS [Judgment Date]: 30 September 2022 Date

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to flawed evidence: Munikrishna vs. State (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes detention order under PIT NDPS Act due to delay and suppression of facts: Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura (2022) INSC 771 (30 September 2022)

/ J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with Section 3(1), Preventive Detention, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court quashes detention order under PIT NDPS Act due to delay and suppression of facts: Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura (2022) INSC 771 (30 September 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) can be quashed

Supreme Court quashes detention order under PIT NDPS Act due to delay and suppression of facts: Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura (2022) INSC 771 (30 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court disposes of Andhra Pradesh-Karnataka River Water Dispute Suit: State of Andhra Pradesh v. State of Karnataka (2022) INSC 823 (28 September 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Inter-State Disputes, Inter-State River Water Disputes, Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 with Water Disputes Tribunal, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court disposes of Andhra Pradesh-Karnataka River Water Dispute Suit Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 823 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, J., J.B. Pardiwala, J. Can a decades-old water dispute be resolved without a formal adjudication? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a

Supreme Court disposes of Andhra Pradesh-Karnataka River Water Dispute Suit: State of Andhra Pradesh v. State of Karnataka (2022) INSC 823 (28 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows withdrawal of plea challenging Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act: Munilal & Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (28 September 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, J.B. Pardiwala, Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005, Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court allows withdrawal of plea challenging Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act: Munilal & Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2022) Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., J.B. Pardiwala, J. Can a petition challenging the validity of a law

Supreme Court allows withdrawal of plea challenging Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act: Munilal & Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (28 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Limits Speaker’s Power on Disqualification: Gyanendra Kumar vs Bihar Legislative Assembly (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Limits Speaker’s Power on Disqualification: Gyanendra Kumar vs Bihar Legislative Assembly (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution regarding disqualification of members of a legislative assembly. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law – Disqualification of Legislators Case Name: Gyanendra Kumar & Ors. vs. Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna

Supreme Court Limits Speaker’s Power on Disqualification: Gyanendra Kumar vs Bihar Legislative Assembly (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “salary” to include leave encashment and gratuity for aided school teachers: Jagdish Prasad Saini vs. State of Rajasthan (26 September 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Judges, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 with Section 2(d), Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 with Section 2(r), Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 with Section 29, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies “salary” to include leave encashment and gratuity for aided school teachers: Jagdish Prasad Saini vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the term “salary” includes leave encashment and gratuity for employees of aided educational institutions in Rajasthan. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Jagdish Prasad Saini & Ors. vs. State of

Supreme Court clarifies “salary” to include leave encashment and gratuity for aided school teachers: Jagdish Prasad Saini vs. State of Rajasthan (26 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Inheritance of Successful Bid in Inventory Proceedings: Ethel Lourdes D’Souza Lobo vs. Lucio Neville Jude De Souza (2022)

/ Inheritance and Succession, Judges, Portuguese Civil Code, Portuguese Civil Code with Article 1417(c), Portuguese Civil Code with Article 1737, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Inheritance of Successful Bid in Inventory Proceedings: Ethel Lourdes D’Souza Lobo vs. Lucio Neville Jude De Souza (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the right of a successful bidder in inventory proceedings under Portuguese Civil Code is heritable. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Inheritance and Succession Case Name: Mrs. Ethel Lourdes D’Souza Lobo vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Inheritance of Successful Bid in Inventory Proceedings: Ethel Lourdes D’Souza Lobo vs. Lucio Neville Jude De Souza (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court to decide on mandatory separate hearing for death penalty cases

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 235, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 354, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court to decide on mandatory separate hearing for death penalty cases Date of the Judgment: 19 September 2022 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, J, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The Supreme Court of India is grappling with a critical question: Should a separate hearing be mandatory after a conviction in cases where the

Supreme Court to decide on mandatory separate hearing for death penalty cases Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Intestate Succession in Faridkot Royal Family Dispute (2022)

/ Civil Law, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 5, Intestate Succession, Judges, Property Law, S. Ravindra Bhat, Succession Law, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Intestate Succession in Faridkot Royal Family Dispute (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Rule of Primogeniture and validity of a will in matters of succession to private properties of a former ruler. CASE TYPE: Civil Succession Dispute Case Name: Maharani Deepinder Kaur (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. and Ors. vs. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur

Supreme Court Upholds Intestate Succession in Faridkot Royal Family Dispute (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Petitions in Property Dispute: N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Smt. Ranjeev R. Acharya (2022)

/ Civil Procedure, Contempt of Court, Inherent Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Judges, Property Dispute, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Petitions in Property Dispute: N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Smt. Ranjeev R. Acharya (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contempt petitions related to a property dispute should be entertained. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court, Property Dispute Case Name: N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Smt. Ranjeev R. Acharya & Anr. and Govindraj & Ors. vs. Smt.

Supreme Court Closes Contempt Petitions in Property Dispute: N. Srinivasa Rao vs. Smt. Ranjeev R. Acharya (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Benami Transactions within Hindu Undivided Families: Pushpalata vs. Vijay Kumar (2022) INSC 756

/ Benami Transaction, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 with Section 4, Hindu Law, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court on Benami Transactions in HUF Property: Pushpalata vs. Vijay Kumar (2022) INSC 756 LEGAL ISSUE: The legal issue in this case is whether a property purchased by the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in the name of a family member can be considered a benami transaction, and if so, whether it

Supreme Court clarifies Benami Transactions within Hindu Undivided Families: Pushpalata vs. Vijay Kumar (2022) INSC 756 Read Post »

Scroll to Top