Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court clarifies the entitlement to salary after disengagement in labor disputes: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Satya Ram (2025)

/ Augustine George Masih, Judges, Sanjay Kumar, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 6H(1)

Date of the Judgment: March 05, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 339 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Can a labor court order salary payments to workers after their disengagement, especially when factual aspects like their age of superannuation are overlooked? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the […]

Supreme Court clarifies the entitlement to salary after disengagement in labor disputes: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Satya Ram (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court revives appeal in murder case due to High Court’s improper dismissal: Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2025)

/ B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 391, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 113-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304-B, Judges, Offences Affecting the Human Body, Relevancy of Judgments, Sanjay Karol, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna, Vikram Nath

Date of the Judgment: February 27, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 287 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar, J. Did the High Court err in dismissing an appeal related to a murder case without properly examining the evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The

Supreme Court revives appeal in murder case due to High Court’s improper dismissal: Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules for bid mistakes in government contracts: ABCI Infrastructures vs. Union of India (2025)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 20, Judges, K.V. Viswanathan, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Date of the Judgment: February 14, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 215 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar J., K.V. Viswanathan J. When is a mistake in a government contract bid considered a genuine error? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a significant infrastructure project. The court examined whether

Supreme Court clarifies rules for bid mistakes in government contracts: ABCI Infrastructures vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to lack of evidence: Siba Nial vs. State of Odisha (2025)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J. Can circumstantial evidence alone be sufficient to convict someone of murder when key eyewitness testimonies are inconsistent and forensic evidence is ambiguous? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Siba Nial @ Trilochan v.

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to lack of evidence: Siba Nial vs. State of Odisha (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges, Orders Reinvestigation in Family Dispute: Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Judges, K. V. Viswanathan, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 7th February, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 168 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI; Sanjay Kumar, J.; K. V. Viswanathan, J. When a family tragedy unfolds, how does the justice system ensure a fair and impartial investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Ayyub &

Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges, Orders Reinvestigation in Family Dispute: Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against MSEFC Orders in MSME Disputes: Tamil Nadu Cements vs. MSEFC (January 22, 2025)

/ A&C Act with Section 34, Arbitration, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Manmohan, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 18, MSMED Act with Section 19, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2025 The Supreme Court of India is examining whether High Courts can intervene using writ petitions against orders from the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC). This council handles disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The core issue is whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against MSEFC Orders in MSME Disputes: Tamil Nadu Cements vs. MSEFC (January 22, 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes FIR against Project Manager in Cheating Case: Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) INSC 8

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 91, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Relating to Property, Sanjay Kumar

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 8 Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J. Can a person be held liable for a crime if there are no specific allegations against them? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a project manager accused of cheating. The court

Supreme Court quashes FIR against Project Manager in Cheating Case: Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) INSC 8 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Title: Maxim India vs. Andappa (2025) INSC 17

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 with Section 136(2), Mutation of Land, Sanjay Kumar, Tenancy Rights

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 17 Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J. Can a party manipulate facts to gain an advantage in a legal dispute? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a land dispute. This case highlights the importance of truthful

Supreme Court Upholds Land Title: Maxim India vs. Andappa (2025) INSC 17 Read Post »

Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms Upheld: Rabi Sahu Case (2023)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 24, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 49, Bar Council of India, Enrolment of Advocates, Judges, Legal Education, Sanjay Kumar, Vikram Nath

Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms Upheld: Rabi Sahu Case (2023) Date of the Judgment: June 9, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 577 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Kumar, J. Can the Bar Council of India (BCI) set additional requirements for enrolling as an advocate, or is a law degree enough? The Supreme

Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms Upheld: Rabi Sahu Case (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms: Rabi Sahu Case (2023)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 24, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 24(3)(d), Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 49, Bar Council of India, Enrolment Standards, Judges, Legal Education, Sanjay Kumar, Vikram Nath

Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms Upheld: Rabi Sahu Case (2023) Date of the Judgment: June 9, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 537 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Kumar, J. Can the Bar Council of India (BCI) set standards for law colleges to ensure quality legal education, or is it solely the responsibility

Supreme Court Upholds Bar Council of India’s Power to Set Enrolment Norms: Rabi Sahu Case (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Order Allowing Unconditional Withdrawal of Funds in Jermyn Capital Case (17 May 2023)

/ Civil Procedure, Judges, Krishna Murari, Modification of Court Order, Order Modification, Sanjay Kumar, Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Withdrawal of Funds in Jermyn Capital Case Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 5472 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Can an order of the Supreme Court be modified to allow for the unconditional withdrawal of funds, previously subject to

Supreme Court Modifies Order Allowing Unconditional Withdrawal of Funds in Jermyn Capital Case (17 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Fund Withdrawal in Jermyn Capital Case (17 May 2023)

/ Court Orders, Criminal Appeals, Criminal Law, Judges, Krishna Murari, Modification of Orders, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Fund Withdrawal in Jermyn Capital Case (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of a previous order regarding the withdrawal of funds. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal. Case Name: M/S. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. Judgment Date: 17 May 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2023

Supreme Court Modifies Order on Fund Withdrawal in Jermyn Capital Case (17 May 2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top