Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: APMC vs. State of Karnataka (22 March 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: APMC vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore vs. The State of Karnataka […]

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: APMC vs. State of Karnataka (22 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Bribery Case Despite Acquittal: State of Karnataka vs. Umesh (2022)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Judicial Review, Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 with Section 12(3), Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 with Section 7(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, Service Law, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Bribery Case Despite Acquittal: State of Karnataka vs. Umesh (2022) Date of the Judgment: March 22, 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1764 of 2022 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J. Can a government employee be penalized for misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding even after being

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Bribery Case Despite Acquittal: State of Karnataka vs. Umesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Corrects Clerical Error in Contempt Judgment: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (21 March 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Clerical Error Correction, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Contempt of Court, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Corrects Judgment on Contempt: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Correction of clerical error in a judgment. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court. Case Name: In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. Judgment Date: 21 March 2022 Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and

Supreme Court Corrects Clerical Error in Contempt Judgment: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022)

/ Amicus Curiae in PIL, Aniruddha Bose, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Public Interest Litigation, Public Interest Litigation with Procedure

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party to a dispute can be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Suresh Srivastava & Ors. vs. Sundeep Bhutoria Judgment Date: March

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Time Bound Promotion eligibility for absorbed employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Antu Patil (2022) INSC 177

/ Absorption, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pay Scale, Service Law, Time Bound Promotion

Supreme Court clarifies Time Bound Promotion eligibility for absorbed employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Antu Patil (2022) INSC 177 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior service on a work-charge basis can be counted for Time Bound Promotion (TBP) after absorption into a new post. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Maharashtra and another

Supreme Court clarifies Time Bound Promotion eligibility for absorbed employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Antu Patil (2022) INSC 177 Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022)

/ Contract Law, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Judicial Review in Contract Matters, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 41(ha), Tender Process, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can interfere with a tender process and halt an infrastructure project based on minor deviations in bid documents. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Infrastructure Development, Tender Process. Case Name: M/S. N.G. Projects

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Procedure for Investigating POCSO Act Violations in Media: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 155, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 4, Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 19, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 23, Special Court under POCSO Act

Supreme Court Addresses Procedure for Investigating POCSO Act Violations in Media: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applies to the investigation of an offense under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and whether a

Supreme Court Addresses Procedure for Investigating POCSO Act Violations in Media: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka (2022) Read Post »

In-Service Quota for Super Specialty Courses Upheld: Supreme Court Decision (March 16, 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Entry 25 in List III, Constitutional Law with Item 66 in List I, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Seventh Schedule

Supreme Court Upholds In-Service Quota for Super Specialty Medical Courses in Tamil Nadu LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Tamil Nadu can reserve 50% of Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) seats for in-service candidates in government medical colleges. CASE TYPE: Education/Medical Admissions Case Name: Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

In-Service Quota for Super Specialty Courses Upheld: Supreme Court Decision (March 16, 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies power of Magistrate to summon additional accused: Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 177 (16 March 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 190, Cognizance of Offence, Judges, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power to Summon Additional Accused in Criminal Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Can a Magistrate summon a person as an accused, who is not named in the police report or in column 2 of the charge sheet, based on other evidence? CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court clarifies power of Magistrate to summon additional accused: Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 177 (16 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 80, Court Fees Act, 1870, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(i), Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(iv), Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether ad valorem court fees are payable on the amount claimed in a suit for damages. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: State of Punjab and Others vs. Dev Brat Sharma Judgment Date: 16 March 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds One Rank One Pension Policy with Periodic Revision: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 244

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP), Pension, Service Law, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds One Rank One Pension Policy with Periodic Revision: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 244 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy for ex-servicemen, with revisions at periodic intervals, is constitutionally valid and non-discriminatory. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Pension Case Name: Indian

Supreme Court Upholds One Rank One Pension Policy with Periodic Revision: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 244 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Ceiling Act: P. Chandrika vs. Commissioner (2022) INSC 195

/ Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Possession of Land, Repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit, Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978

Supreme Court Upholds Land Ceiling Act: P. Chandrika vs. Commissioner (2022) INSC 195 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition is maintainable when possession of excess urban land was taken over before the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 was repealed. CASE TYPE: Land Ceiling Law. Case Name: P. Chandrika vs. The Commissioner, Commissioner of Urban Land

Supreme Court Upholds Land Ceiling Act: P. Chandrika vs. Commissioner (2022) INSC 195 Read Post »

Scroll to Top