Surya Kant

Supreme Court Remands Land Ownership Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi Kumar (2023)

/ Government Grants Act, 1895, Government Grants Act, 1895 with Section 2, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Surya Kant, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 116, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939

Supreme Court Remands Land Ownership Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi Kumar (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of land ownership rights based on a lease agreement and subsequent tenancy claims. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Dispute Case Name: State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Ravi Kumar (Deceased) through LRs and others [Judgment Date]: 18 May 2023 […]

Supreme Court Remands Land Ownership Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi Kumar (2023) Read Post »

Land Ownership Dispute Remanded: Supreme Court Revisits Leasehold Rights in State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi Kumar (2023)

/ Government Grants Act of 1895, Government Grants Act of 1895 with Section 2(1), Government Grants Act of 1895 with Section 2(2), Government Grants Act of 1895 with Section 2(3), J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Surya Kant, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 116, UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1950, UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1950 with Section 130, UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1950 with Section 131

Supreme Court Remands Land Ownership Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi Kumar (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ownership of land based on leasehold rights and subsequent tenancy claims. CASE TYPE: Civil Law (Land Ownership and Tenancy) Case Name: State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Ravi Kumar (Deceased) through LRs and others [Judgment Date]: 18 May

Land Ownership Dispute Remanded: Supreme Court Revisits Leasehold Rights in State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi Kumar (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court awards compensation in railway accident case: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023)

/ J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Railway Accident Compensation, Railways Act, 1989, Railways Act, 1989 with Section 123(c)(2), Railways Act, 1989 with Section 124A, Surya Kant

Supreme Court awards compensation in railway accident case: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death of a passenger who fell from a train constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ and if the absence of a ticket negates a claim for compensation. CASE TYPE: Railway Accident Compensation Case Name: Kamukayi & Ors. vs. Union

Supreme Court awards compensation in railway accident case: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Railway Accidents: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023)

/ J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Railway Accident Compensation, Railways Act, 1989, Railways Act, 1989 with Section 123(c), Railways Act, 1989 with Section 124A, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Railway Accidents: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining compensation for railway accident victims and the burden of proof for establishing a passenger’s bonafide status. CASE TYPE: Railway Accident Compensation Case Name: Kamukayi & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. Judgment Date: 16 May 2023 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Railway Accidents: Kamukayi vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds CBI’s Power to Further Investigate After Closure Report in Corruption Case (28 April 2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173(8), J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 17, Surya Kant

“`html Supreme Court Upholds CBI’s Power to Further Investigate After Closure Report Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 375 Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala Can a criminal investigation be reopened after it has been closed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case

Supreme Court Upholds CBI’s Power to Further Investigate After Closure Report in Corruption Case (28 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority over Industrial Land Allotment in Rajasthan: Bishambhar Prasad vs. Arfat Petrochemicals (2023)

/ Judges, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 with Rule 12, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 with Rule 8, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 with Section 100, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority over Industrial Land Allotment in Rajasthan: Bishambhar Prasad vs. Arfat Petrochemicals (2023) Date of the Judgment: April 20, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 367 Judges: Surya Kant, J. and Vikram Nath, J. Can a state government revoke permissions granted by a state industrial development corporation for land use changes? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority over Industrial Land Allotment in Rajasthan: Bishambhar Prasad vs. Arfat Petrochemicals (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority in Industrial Land Dispute: Bishambhar Prasad vs. Arfat Petrochemicals (2023)

/ Judges, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 with Rule 11A, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 with Rule 12, Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 with Rule 8, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 with Section 100, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority in Industrial Land Dispute: Bishambhar Prasad vs. Arfat Petrochemicals (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government or the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) has the authority over industrial land allotted under the Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Dispute Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority in Industrial Land Dispute: Bishambhar Prasad vs. Arfat Petrochemicals (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Contract Killing Case: Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Contract Killing Case: Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Cancellation of bail due to improper consideration of relevant factors by the High Court. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Judgment Date: 18 April 2023 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Contract Killing Case: Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case: CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 41A, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case: CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a public servant accused of corruption, especially when there is evidence of demand and acceptance of a bribe and attempts to evade arrest. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Prevention of Corruption Act) Case Name: Central

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case: CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case: CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 41A, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case: CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged corruption involving a public servant. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Prevention of Corruption Act) Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Santosh Karnani & Anr. [Judgment Date]: April 17, 2023 Introduction

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case: CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 313, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 8, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal based on circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of a confessional statement leading to the discovery of a fact. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Siju Kurian vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 8, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be upheld based on circumstantial evidence when there is no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Murder Case Name: Siju Kurian vs. State of

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top