Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court acquits accused in SC & ST Act case due to inconsistencies in evidence: Hutu Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand (07 April 2025)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 156(3), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 447, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Offences related to Trespass, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 07 April 2025 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran Can inconsistencies between a formal complaint and oral testimony lead to the acquittal of the accused, especially in cases involving allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? The Supreme Court of India […]

Supreme Court acquits accused in SC & ST Act case due to inconsistencies in evidence: Hutu Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand (07 April 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in suspicious death case: Jagdish Gond vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 174, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 07, 2025 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. When a young woman dies mysteriously within two years of marriage, suspicion often falls on the husband and in-laws. But what happens when the evidence is unclear and the cause of death is uncertain? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court overturns conviction in suspicious death case: Jagdish Gond vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes FIR in land transaction case: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Brij Bhushan (2025)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 with Section 28, Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 with Section 28-A, Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 with Section 5(2), Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 07, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 461 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran In a case concerning a land transaction that occurred in 1989, the Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of an FIR registered in 2021. The FIR alleged offences under Section 5(2) of the

Supreme Court quashes FIR in land transaction case: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Brij Bhushan (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Section 138 NI Act: Ashok Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 139, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 142, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: April 02, 2025 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Can a High Court overturn concurrent findings of lower courts in a cheque dishonor case? The Supreme Court addressed this question in Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., concerning the validity of a conviction under Section 138 of

Supreme Court Revisits Section 138 NI Act: Ashok Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Deadly Scuffle Over Disputed Land: Maukam Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 324, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 435 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. Did a deadly scuffle arising from a land dispute constitute murder? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a fatal altercation following a disagreement over worship practices on disputed

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Deadly Scuffle Over Disputed Land: Maukam Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside CBI investigation order in impersonation and extortion case: Vinay Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 433 (2 April 2025)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 433 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. When should a case be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving allegations of impersonation and extortion. The Court overturned

Supreme Court sets aside CBI investigation order in impersonation and extortion case: Vinay Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 433 (2 April 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Bonus Act Applicability to Charitable Trusts Running Factories: WORTH Trust Case (April 2, 2025)

/ Factories Act, 1948, Factories Act, 1948 with Section 2(m), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 10(2), Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 with Section 1(3)(a), Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 with Section 32(v)(c), Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2025 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. Can a charitable trust that runs a factory be exempted from paying bonuses to its workers under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of The Management of WORTH

Supreme Court Clarifies Bonus Act Applicability to Charitable Trusts Running Factories: WORTH Trust Case (April 2, 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits public servants in bribery case due to reasonable doubt: Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 340 (7 March 2025)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 164, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 340 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of proving demand and acceptance of bribe in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved two public servants, an

Supreme Court acquits public servants in bribery case due to reasonable doubt: Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 340 (7 March 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes detention order due to non-consideration of bail conditions in smuggling case: Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 327 (March 06, 2025)

/ COFEPOSA Act, 1974, COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with Section 3(1), Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 108, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Preventive Detention, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: March 06, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 327 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran Can preventive detention be justified if the detaining authority fails to consider the conditions imposed by a Magistrate while granting bail for the same alleged offences? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question

Supreme Court quashes detention order due to non-consideration of bail conditions in smuggling case: Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 327 (March 06, 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits husband in wife’s death due to inconsistencies in dying declaration: Suresh vs. State (2025) INSC 318 (04 March 2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Dying Declaration, Evidence Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 318 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Is a dying declaration enough to convict someone of murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Suresh vs. State. The court overturned the conviction of a husband who

Supreme Court acquits husband in wife’s death due to inconsistencies in dying declaration: Suresh vs. State (2025) INSC 318 (04 March 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the status of ad-hoc employees in Sports Authority of India: Sports Authority of India & Anr. vs. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana (2025) INSC 319 (04 March 2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Judges, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Service Rules and Regulations, Societies Registration Act, 1860, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 319 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. What happens to employees who are hired on an ad-hoc basis when new rules come into effect? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a recent case involving the Sports Authority of India

Supreme Court settles the status of ad-hoc employees in Sports Authority of India: Sports Authority of India & Anr. vs. Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana (2025) INSC 319 (04 March 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Delay Condonation in Specific Performance Suit: K. Ramasamy vs. R. Nallammal (03 March 2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX, Rule 13, Condonation of Delay, Ex-parte Decree, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 310 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. Can a significant delay in seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree be excused merely on the grounds of a lawyer’s negligence? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a suit for

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Delay Condonation in Specific Performance Suit: K. Ramasamy vs. R. Nallammal (03 March 2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top