Sanjay Kumar

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 »

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency, Allows CIRP to Continue with Modifications: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore Arora (2023)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency, Allows CIRP to Continue with Modifications: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore Arora (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) can order a project-wise Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) instead of a company-wide CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Indiabulls

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency, Allows CIRP to Continue with Modifications: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore Arora (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Constitutional Law with Article 298, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 5, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 6, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 7, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State can challenge the validity of a Central law under Article 131 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Original Suit Case Name: State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India & Others Judgment Date: 11 May

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

State’s Right to Challenge Central Laws: Supreme Court Addresses Maintainability of Meghalaya’s Suit on Lottery Regulations (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Dinesh Maheshwari, Federalism, Judges, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 5, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 6, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 7, Original Jurisdiction, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Addresses State’s Right to Challenge Central Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State can challenge the constitutional validity of a Central law under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Original Suit Case Name: State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India & Others

State’s Right to Challenge Central Laws: Supreme Court Addresses Maintainability of Meghalaya’s Suit on Lottery Regulations (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency Resolution: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore (2023)

/ Committee of Creditors (CoC), Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency Resolution: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) can order a project-wise insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Ram Kishore Arora & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency Resolution: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 28, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Contract Law, Contract Law with Fuel Supply Contract, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Power Purchase Agreement, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 448 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Kumar, J. Can a court interfere with an arbitrator’s decision on a complex commercial contract? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top