Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Ticket Forgery Case: Surinder Dogra vs. State (2025)

/ Judges, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 5, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 with Section 420, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 with Section 468, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 with Section 471, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: February 21, 2025 Judges: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Can an airline employee be convicted for forging flight tickets and causing financial loss to the company? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an employee of Indian Airlines who was accused of tampering […]

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Ticket Forgery Case: Surinder Dogra vs. State (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of NOC for Ayurvedic College Due to Procedural Irregularities: Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025)

/ Administrative Law, Contract Law, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Promissory Estoppel, Rules of Business, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 232 Judges: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran Can a state government withdraw a No Objection Certificate (NOC) that it initially granted for the establishment of a private Ayurvedic medical college? This question was at the heart of a recent dispute before the

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of NOC for Ayurvedic College Due to Procedural Irregularities: Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Increases Interest Rate in Employee Compensation Case: Shanti & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company (2025)

/ Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 with Section 4A(2), Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 with Section 4A(3), Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 234 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran When an employee suffers an accident, are they entitled to a fair interest rate on their compensation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning the interest payable under the

Supreme Court Increases Interest Rate in Employee Compensation Case: Shanti & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies forfeiture of gratuity on misconduct: Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Manohar Govinda Fulzele (2025) INSC 233 (17 February 2025)

/ General Clauses Act, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with Section 4(5), Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with Section 4(6), Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 233 Judges: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran Can an employer forfeit an employee’s gratuity if the employee is terminated for misconduct involving moral turpitude, even without a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Western

Supreme Court clarifies forfeiture of gratuity on misconduct: Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Manohar Govinda Fulzele (2025) INSC 233 (17 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act Charges in Property Dispute Case: Jay Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with Section 2, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with Section 3

Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 198 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Can allegations of cheating and property disputes lead to charges under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the case of Jay Kishan and Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act Charges in Property Dispute Case: Jay Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking clarification on statements made during Habeas Corpus petition: Dhanlaxmi vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 196 (12 February 2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Habeas Corpus, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 196 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah When can a court refuse to entertain repeated requests for clarification on statements made during court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking clarification on statements made during Habeas Corpus petition: Dhanlaxmi vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 196 (12 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates CCI Approval Before CoC Nod for Combination Resolution Plans: Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. (2025) INSC 124 (29 January 2025)

/ Combination, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 5, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31(4), Judges, S.V.N. Bhatti, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 124 Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J. (Majority opinion by Hrishikesh Roy, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., with a dissenting opinion by S.V.N. Bhatti, J.) Can a resolution plan involving a combination under the Competition Act, 2002, be approved by the

Supreme Court Mandates CCI Approval Before CoC Nod for Combination Resolution Plans: Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. (2025) INSC 124 (29 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court restores compensation in motor accident case: S. Vishnu Ganga & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Compensation Law, Judges, Motor Accident Claims, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 168, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: January 29, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 123 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a critical question: Can a High Court reduce compensation awarded by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal based on the assumption that the family business continues to thrive after the

Supreme Court restores compensation in motor accident case: S. Vishnu Ganga & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses: Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025) INSC 125 (29 January 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Institutional Preference, Judges, Medical Education, Post Graduate Medical Courses, S.V.N. Bhatti, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 125 Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J. Is it constitutional for a state to reserve Post Graduate (PG) medical seats based on a candidate’s residence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question. This judgment clarifies the rules for

Supreme Court settles domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses: Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025) INSC 125 (29 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher Appointments, Emphasizing Fair Hearing: Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. (2025)

/ Administrative Law, Audi Alteram Partem, Hrishikesh Roy, JK Maheshwari, Judges, KV Vishwanathan, Natural Justice, Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 with Section 100, Panchayat Raj Act Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 with Section 40, Rule Against Bias, S.V.N. Bhatti, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: January 29, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 126 Judges: Hrishikesh Roy J, Sudhanshu Dhulia J, S.V.N. Bhatti J Can a selection process be deemed invalid if some members of the selection committee are related to the selected candidates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher Appointments, Emphasizing Fair Hearing: Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds LPG Distributorship Allotment Despite Land Dispute: Jagwant Kaur vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 112 (27 January 2025)

/ Affidavits, Contract Law, Guidelines for LPG Distributorship Allotment, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, LPG Distributorship Allotment, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 112 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran Can an LPG distributorship allotment be cancelled if the land offered is subject to a dispute? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question. This case revolves around a contested allotment of an LPG

Supreme Court Upholds LPG Distributorship Allotment Despite Land Dispute: Jagwant Kaur vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 112 (27 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between valid execution and genuineness of a Will: Lilian Coelho vs. Myra Philomena Coalho (2025)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 68, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 63, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: January 02, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 7 Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Can a Will be considered genuine simply because it was validly executed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a dispute over a Will. The core issue was whether a

Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between valid execution and genuineness of a Will: Lilian Coelho vs. Myra Philomena Coalho (2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top