Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in P.S. Patel vs. State Bank of Saurashtra (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Review Petition, Special Leave Petition, Supreme Court of India, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in P.S. Patel vs. State Bank of Saurashtra (2022) Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 221 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a review petition be entertained if there is no apparent error on record? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this […]

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in P.S. Patel vs. State Bank of Saurashtra (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Default Bail Under UAPA: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sadique and Ors. (2022)

/ Bail, Bela M. Trivedi, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Default Bail, Extension of Investigation Time, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 43-D

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition on Default Bail Under UAPA Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2022 Citation: Review Petition (Criminal) No. of 2022 (Arising out of Diary No. 1930 of 2022) in Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2021 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J. Can a Magistrate

Supreme Court Upholds Default Bail Under UAPA: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sadique and Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court reinstates judicial officer discharged during probation: Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 311(2), Judges, Probation, Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court reinstates judicial officer discharged during probation: Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the discharge of a judicial officer during probation was a simple discharge or punitive action. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Abhay Jain vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court reinstates judicial officer discharged during probation: Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Withholding of Gratuity Pending Criminal Appeal: Local Self Government Dept. vs. K. Chandran (2022)

/ Departmental Proceedings, Gratuity, Judges, Kerala Service Rules, M.M. Sundresh, Pension, Rule 3, Kerala Service Rules, Rule 3A, Kerala Service Rules, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Withholding of Gratuity Pending Criminal Appeal: Local Self Government Dept. vs. K. Chandran (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to the release of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) upon conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms, when an appeal is pending before the High Court. CASE TYPE: Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Withholding of Gratuity Pending Criminal Appeal: Local Self Government Dept. vs. K. Chandran (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of common intention: Gadadhar Chandra vs. State of West Bengal (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 164, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of common intention: Gadadhar Chandra vs. State of West Bengal (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused shared a common intention with the co-accused to commit murder under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Gadadhar Chandra v. State

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of common intention: Gadadhar Chandra vs. State of West Bengal (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Central Excise Inspectors: B.S. Murthy vs. A. Ravinder Singh (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Recruitment Rules, S. Ravindra Bhat, Seniority, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Central Excise Inspectors: B.S. Murthy vs. A. Ravinder Singh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotee inspectors in the Central Excise Department. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: B.S. Murthy & Ors. vs. A. Ravinder Singh & Ors. [Judgment Date]: March 15, 2022

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Central Excise Inspectors: B.S. Murthy vs. A. Ravinder Singh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits age relaxation for Delhi Judicial Services Exam: High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma (2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Age Relaxation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Constitutional Law with Article 235, Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970 with Rule 14(c), Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970 with Rule 9(3), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Judges, Judicial Service Exams, Service Law

Supreme Court permits age relaxation for Delhi Judicial Services Exam: High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can fix age criteria for judicial service exams, and whether candidates should get age relaxation due to delayed exams. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: High Court of Delhi vs. Devina

Supreme Court permits age relaxation for Delhi Judicial Services Exam: High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Director in Road Tax Case: Sri Narendra Kumar A. Baldota vs. The State of Karnataka (2022) INSC 198 (14 March 2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 with Section 8A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Director in Road Tax Case Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 198 Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can a company director be held criminally liable for a road tax shortfall when the company has already paid the demanded amount? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Director in Road Tax Case: Sri Narendra Kumar A. Baldota vs. The State of Karnataka (2022) INSC 198 (14 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Employee Transfer and Seniority: Gwalior Development Authority vs. Subhash Saxena (2022)

/ Judges, K.M. Joseph, Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatagram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatagram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 with Section 72, Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatagram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 with Section 73, Promotion Rules, S. Ravindra Bhat, Seniority Disputes, Service Law, Transfer of Employees

Supreme Court Upholds Employee Transfer and Seniority: Gwalior Development Authority vs. Subhash Saxena (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee’s transfer between development authorities is valid and how seniority should be determined in such cases. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Gwalior Development Authority vs. Subhash Saxena & Others [Judgment Date]: March 14, 2022 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Employee Transfer and Seniority: Gwalior Development Authority vs. Subhash Saxena (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of interlocutory orders in trademark disputes: Shyam Sel and Power Limited vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited (2022) INSC 192 (14 March 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 2(9), Intra-Court Appeals, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Appealability of Interlocutory Orders in Trademark Disputes Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 192 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can every order passed by a single judge of a High Court be challenged in an intra-court appeal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of interlocutory orders in trademark disputes: Shyam Sel and Power Limited vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited (2022) INSC 192 (14 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest Calculation Under Employee’s Compensation Act: Shobha vs. Vithalrao Shinde (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Compensation Payment, Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 with Section 4A, Interest on Compensation, Judges, Labour Law, Labour Rights, M.R. Shah, Workplace Accidents

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest Calculation Under Employee’s Compensation Act: Shobha vs. Vithalrao Shinde (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Calculation of interest on compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name: Shobha & Ors. vs. The Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: March 11, 2022 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest Calculation Under Employee’s Compensation Act: Shobha vs. Vithalrao Shinde (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Contemnors Guilty for Disobeying Orders in Arbitration Case: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Dharmesh S. Jain (2022) INSC 200 (10 March 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Contempt, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Holds Contemnors Guilty for Disobeying Orders in Arbitration Case Date of the Judgment: 10 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 200 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a party repeatedly delay compliance with court orders and then claim they are not bound by them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court Holds Contemnors Guilty for Disobeying Orders in Arbitration Case: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Dharmesh S. Jain (2022) INSC 200 (10 March 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top