Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court upholds findings on oral gift: Sheikh Yakub vs. Sakinabi (2018)

/ Burden of Proof, Evidence, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Oral Gift, Property Law, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 122

Supreme Court Upholds Findings on Oral Gift in Property Dispute: Sheikh Yakub vs. Sakinabi (2018) Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. Can an oral gift of property be considered valid without sufficient evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question […]

Supreme Court upholds findings on oral gift: Sheikh Yakub vs. Sakinabi (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside contempt sentence in K.K. Jha vs. Jharkhand High Court (2018)

/ Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Sets Aside Contempt Sentence: K.K. Jha vs. Jharkhand High Court (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a sentence for criminal contempt should be set aside due to the contemnor’s health condition and non-practice in the relevant jurisdiction. CASE TYPE: Criminal Contempt Case Name: K.K. Jha “Kamal” vs. Jharkhand High Court & Anr. [Judgment Date]: July

Supreme Court sets aside contempt sentence in K.K. Jha vs. Jharkhand High Court (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Settling Matrimonial Dispute: Bhupender Singh vs. Reema (2018)

/ Divorce, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Family Law, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Divorce, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Settling Matrimonial Dispute: Bhupender Singh vs. Reema (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree of divorce can be granted by mutual consent after the Trial Court had granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute/Divorce Case Name: Bhupender Singh vs. Reema [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Settling Matrimonial Dispute: Bhupender Singh vs. Reema (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Charge Framing in Murder Case: Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018)

/ Charge Framing, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 464, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Charge Framing in Murder Case: Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Defective framing of charges and the application of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Others [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Charge Framing in Murder Case: Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court’s conviction in 1988 road rage case: Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab (2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court overturns High Court’s conviction in 1988 road rage case: Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused were responsible for the death of the victim due to a road rage incident. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab. Judgment Date: 15 May

Supreme Court overturns High Court’s conviction in 1988 road rage case: Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Process for Punjab Superior Judicial Service: Gurmeet Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, Recruitment, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law, Service Law with Article 309

Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Process for Punjab Superior Judicial Service: Gurmeet Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 429 Judges: J. Chelameswar, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Can a recruitment process be challenged after a candidate participates without objection and is later unsuccessful? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Process for Punjab Superior Judicial Service: Gurmeet Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Judgment on Differential Benefits for Employees: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018)

/ Differential Mandatory Benefits, Implementation of Court Orders, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law, Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court Modifies Judgment on Differential Benefits for Employees: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) Date of the Judgment: May 14, 2018 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 877 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.15852 of 2016) Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul The Supreme Court of India has

Supreme Court Modifies Judgment on Differential Benefits for Employees: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies confirmation rules for Jharkhand Judicial Service: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018)

/ Confirmation of Service, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 235, Constitutional Law with Article 309, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Judicial Service, Pension Scheme, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies confirmation rules for Jharkhand Judicial Service: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether passing a departmental Hindi examination is a mandatory condition for the confirmation of Civil Judges in Jharkhand, in addition to the examination conducted by the Judicial Academy. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Ashok Kumar &

Supreme Court clarifies confirmation rules for Jharkhand Judicial Service: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules Fast Track Court service counts towards pension benefits in Judicial Service: Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. State of Jharkhand (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 275, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Judicial Service, Pension Benefits, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Counts Fast Track Court Service for Pension: Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether service as a Fast Track Court Judge should be counted for pension and other retirement benefits upon joining regular judicial service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. The State of Jharkhand

Supreme Court rules Fast Track Court service counts towards pension benefits in Judicial Service: Mahesh Chandra Verma vs. State of Jharkhand (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Compensates Hajj Tour Operators for Illegal Disqualification: United Air Travel Services vs. Union of India (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Damages in Public Law, Fundamental Rights, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Public Law, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Writ Petition

Supreme Court Compensates Hajj Tour Operators for Illegal Disqualification (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Private Tour Operators (PTOs) were illegally denied registration for the Hajj pilgrimage. CASE TYPE: Public Law/Writ Petition. Case Name: United Air Travel Services vs. Union of India. Judgment Date: May 7, 2018 Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2018 Citation: The case

Supreme Court Compensates Hajj Tour Operators for Illegal Disqualification: United Air Travel Services vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Municipal Upgradation under Article 243Q: Champa Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (26 April 2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 243Q, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Local Self-Government, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Municipal Upgradation under Article 243Q: Champa Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 368 Judges: J. Chelameswar, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Can a State government upgrade a village to a municipality without following the constitutional guidelines? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements for Municipal Upgradation under Article 243Q: Champa Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (26 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Confiscation of Sandalwood Oil Under Kerala Forest Act: M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries vs. Forest Range Officer (2018)

/ Forest Produce, Judges, Kerala Forest Act, 1961, Kerala Forest Act, 1961 with Section 61A, Kerala Forest Act, 1961 with Section 69, R.K. Agrawal, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Sets Aside Confiscation of Sandalwood Oil Under Kerala Forest Act: M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries vs. Forest Range Officer (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether sandalwood oil can be confiscated under Section 61A or Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Forest Law Case Name: M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries & Anr.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Confiscation of Sandalwood Oil Under Kerala Forest Act: M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries vs. Forest Range Officer (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top