Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a police force reject candidates for a constable […]

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018)

/ Burden of Proof, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence of murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar. [Judgment Date]: January 8,

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 313, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of eye witness testimony and ballistic evidence in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir and Anr. Judgment Date: 13 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1048 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can inconsistencies in

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizes Eye Witness Testimony: State of U.P. vs. Raghuvir (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Summon Additional Documents at Charge Framing Stage: Nitya Dharmananda vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 91, Framing of Charges, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can summon documents not included in the charge sheet at the stage of framing charges under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda and Anr.

Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Summon Additional Documents at Charge Framing Stage: Nitya Dharmananda vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules percentage-based advocate fees unethical, quashes proceedings: B. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an advocate can claim fees based on a percentage of the decretal amount and whether a cheque issued for such fees constitutes a legally enforceable debt.CASE TYPE: Professional Ethics, Negotiable Instruments Act Case Name: B. Sunitha vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 5th December, 2017 Can a lawyer demand

Supreme Court rules percentage-based advocate fees unethical, quashes proceedings: B. Sunitha vs. State of Telangana (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court emphasizes continuous witness examination in criminal trials: Doongar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (28 November 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 309, Judges, Trial Procedures, Uday Umesh Lalit

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 1012 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can adjournments in criminal trials lead to witnesses being influenced, thereby jeopardizing the pursuit of justice? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed the critical issue of trial delays and the need for

Supreme Court emphasizes continuous witness examination in criminal trials: Doongar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Urges Law on Public Property Damage During Protests: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India (28 November 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 with Amendment, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Need for legislation to address damage to public property during agitations and protests. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 28 November 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017 Citation: Not Available (INSC) Judges: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday

Supreme Court Urges Law on Public Property Damage During Protests: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Engineering Degrees via Distance Education Programs: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. (2017) INSC 920 (3 November 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 with Section 10, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 with Section 2(g), Judges, Technical Education, Uday Umesh Lalit, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, University Grants Commission Act, 1956 with Section 2(f), University Grants Commission Act, 1956 with Section 23, University Grants Commission Act, 1956 with Section 3

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 920 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. (authored the judgment) Can a deemed university offer engineering degrees through distance education without proper approvals? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue, invalidating such degrees and emphasizing the need for stringent regulatory

Supreme Court Invalidates Engineering Degrees via Distance Education Programs: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. (2017) INSC 920 (3 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court restores rape conviction in case of deaf and dumb victim: State of Maharashtra vs. Bandu (24 October 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Rape, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vulnerable Witnesses

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the testimony of a deaf and dumb, mentally challenged rape victim is essential for conviction when other evidence exists. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: The State of Maharashtra vs. Bandu @ Daulat Judgment Date: 24 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2017 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of

Supreme Court restores rape conviction in case of deaf and dumb victim: State of Maharashtra vs. Bandu (24 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Panama Papers Investigation: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. CBI (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judges, Money Laundering, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 51A, Uday Umesh Lalit, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 51A

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the existing Special Investigation Team (SIT) is sufficient to investigate the Panama Papers revelations. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Criminal) Case Name: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. Judgment Date: October 9, 2017 Date of the Judgment: October 9, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Adarsh Kumar

Supreme Court Addresses Panama Papers Investigation: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. CBI (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Relaxes Six-Month Waiting Period for Divorce by Mutual Consent: Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) INSC 777 (12 September 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13B, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the six-month minimum waiting period for a second motion in divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is mandatory or can be relaxed in exceptional cases. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Divorce Case Name: Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur Judgment Date: 12 September 2017 Introduction Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court Relaxes Six-Month Waiting Period for Divorce by Mutual Consent: Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) INSC 777 (12 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Clause: Aravali Power Company vs. Era Infra Engineering (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 12, Arbitration Law with Section 13, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee of a party to a contract can act as an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the contract, before the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Judgment Date: 12

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Clause: Aravali Power Company vs. Era Infra Engineering (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top