Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court clarifies drug stocking rules for doctors: S. Athilakshmi vs. State (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 18(c), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 27(b)(ii), Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Judges, Krishna Murari, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court clarifies drug stocking rules for doctors: S. Athilakshmi vs. State (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a registered medical practitioner stocking small quantities of medicines for their patients amounts to “stocking for sale” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: S. Athilakshmi vs. The State Rep. by the Drugs […]

Supreme Court clarifies drug stocking rules for doctors: S. Athilakshmi vs. State (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against doctor for stocking medicines: S. Athilakshmi vs. State (2023)

/ Criminal Law, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 18, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 27, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 with Schedule K, Judges, Krishna Murari, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against doctor for stocking medicines: S. Athilakshmi vs. State (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a registered medical practitioner stocking medicines for distribution to her own patients amounts to “stocking for sale” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: S. Athilakshmi vs. The State Rep. by

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against doctor for stocking medicines: S. Athilakshmi vs. State (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies NGT Order on Consent for Petroleum Outlets: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. V.B.R. Menon & Others (2023) INSC 227 (14 March 2023)

/ Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 with Section 21, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 5, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 22, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 33, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 18, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 25

Supreme Court Modifies NGT Order on Consent for Petroleum Outlets Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 227 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala Can the National Green Tribunal (NGT) mandate that all petroleum retail outlets obtain “Consent to Establish” (CTE) and “Consent to Operate” (CTO)? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Modifies NGT Order on Consent for Petroleum Outlets: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. V.B.R. Menon & Others (2023) INSC 227 (14 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies consent requirements for retail petroleum outlets: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. V.B.R. Menon & Others (2023) INSC 231 (14 March 2023)

/ Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 with Section 18, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 with Section 21, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 5, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 22, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 33, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 18, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 25

Supreme Court on Consent Requirements for Retail Petroleum Outlets Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 231 Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Can the National Green Tribunal (NGT) mandate that all retail petroleum outlets obtain “Consent to Establish” (CTE) and “Consent to Operate” (CTO)? The Supreme Court recently addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies consent requirements for retail petroleum outlets: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. V.B.R. Menon & Others (2023) INSC 231 (14 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows amendment of pleadings in mortgage redemption suit: Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar Prasad (2023)

/ Amendment of Pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VI Rule 17, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Redemption of Mortgage, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 83

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings in Mortgage Redemption Suit: Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar Prasad (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a plaintiff can amend their plaint to include alternative and potentially inconsistent pleas, particularly in a suit involving mortgage redemption and tenancy disputes. CASE TYPE: Civil (Mortgage Redemption, Tenancy Dispute) Case Name: Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar

Supreme Court allows amendment of pleadings in mortgage redemption suit: Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar Prasad (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Complaints Dismissed for Non-Appearance in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited vs. M/s. Rajwant Singh & Others (2023) INSC 177 (01 March 2023)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 311, Judges, Manoj Misra, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Reinstates Complaints Dismissed for Non-Appearance in Cheque Bounce Cases Date of the Judgment: 01 March 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 177 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manoj Misra Can a criminal complaint be dismissed for the complainant’s absence even after their evidence has been recorded? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Reinstates Complaints Dismissed for Non-Appearance in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited vs. M/s. Rajwant Singh & Others (2023) INSC 177 (01 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for dismissal of complaints under Section 256 CrPC: BLS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Rajwant Singh & Ors. (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 311, Dismissal of Complaint, Judges, Manoj Misra, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court on Dismissal of Complaint for Non-Appearance of Complainant Date of the Judgment: March 1, 2023Citation: 2023 INSC 1872Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manoj Misra Can a criminal complaint be dismissed solely for the complainant’s absence, even after their evidence has been recorded? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for dismissal of complaints under Section 256 CrPC: BLS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Rajwant Singh & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Order for Fresh Trial in Sale Deed Cancellation Case: Sirajudheen vs. Zeenath & Ors. (27 February 2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 23, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 24, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 103, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 120, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 69, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Order for Fresh Trial in Sale Deed Cancellation Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in remanding a case for a fresh trial when the Trial Court had already made a decision based on the available evidence. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name:

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Order for Fresh Trial in Sale Deed Cancellation Case: Sirajudheen vs. Zeenath & Ors. (27 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Order for Fresh Trial in Sale Deed Dispute: Sirajudheen vs. Zeenath (2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 103, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 120, Judges, Order XLI, Rules 23, 23-A, 24, 27, and 33, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Order for Fresh Trial in Sale Deed Dispute: Sirajudheen vs. Zeenath (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in remanding a case for a fresh trial when the existing evidence was sufficient for a decision. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: Sirajudheen vs.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Order for Fresh Trial in Sale Deed Dispute: Sirajudheen vs. Zeenath (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Regularization for Daily Wage Employee: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Daily Wage Employees, Judges, Regularization, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Regularization for Daily Wage Employee: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a daily wage employee is entitled to regularization without a sanctioned post and appointment by a competent authority. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Regularization for Daily Wage Employee: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Violation of Himachal Pradesh Land Laws: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023)

/ Civil Law, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 149, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 with Section 118, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Specific Performance, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Violation of Himachal Pradesh Land Laws LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing an appeal can be condoned, and whether a suit for specific performance can be granted when the initial agreement violates land transfer laws. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Ajay Dabra

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Violation of Himachal Pradesh Land Laws: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Invalid Land Transfer: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023)

/ Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 149, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 with Section 118, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Invalid Land Transfer: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing an appeal can be condoned based on insufficient funds and whether a suit for specific performance can be decreed when the initial contract for sale

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Invalid Land Transfer: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top