Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Rejection in Foreign Funded Project: National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Limited (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Law, Contract Law with ITB 28.1, Government Contracts, Judges, M.R. Shah, Tender Process

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Rejection in Foreign Funded Project: National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Limited (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of judicial review in tender processes for foreign-funded projects. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, specifically relating to government tenders and foreign-funded projects. Case Name: National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited vs. Montecarlo Limited & […]

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Rejection in Foreign Funded Project: National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Limited (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act in cases involving unregistered firms: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (31 January 2022)

/ Dinesh Maheshwari, Effect of Non-Registration, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 69, Judges, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 69 of Partnership Act in Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 119 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Vikram Nath, J. Can an unregistered partnership firm seek legal recourse against a third party for a transaction not directly related to its core

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act in cases involving unregistered firms: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (31 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows suit by unregistered firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022)

/ Civil Law, Contract Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Effect of Non-Registration, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 69, Judges, Property Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Allows Suit by Unregistered Firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, when the suit is not for enforcement of a right arising from a contract related to the firm’s business. CASE

Supreme Court allows suit by unregistered firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rights in Reinstatement Cases: Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited vs. Basil T K & Ors (2022)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Rules, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Rules with Rule 18, Reinstatement, Seniority, Service Law, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rights in Reinstatement Cases: Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited vs. Basil T K & Ors (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining seniority rights of employees reinstated after wrongful termination. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited vs. Basil T K & Ors [Judgment Date]: 31 January 2022

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rights in Reinstatement Cases: Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited vs. Basil T K & Ors (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

/ Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 118 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can discrepancies in the inquest report and post-mortem report be grounds for overturning a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

/ Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of murder and use of firearms beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the defense’s alibi and discrepancies in evidence were sufficient to overturn the conviction. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Pappu

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Pappu Tiwary vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022)

/ Compensation, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Valuation, Property Law, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Madhukar S/O Govindrao Kamble & Ors. vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors. Judgment Date: January 31, 2022 Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2022 Citation:

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XIV Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 1, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the issue of limitation in a suit for recovery of money can be decided as a preliminary issue based on oral arguments alone, without considering evidence. CASE TYPE: Civil (Loan Recovery) Case Name: M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the determination of limitation in loan recovery suits in Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (31 January 2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XIV Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Act, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022) Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No 814 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 26930 of 2019) Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J. When can a court decide on the issue

Supreme Court clarifies the determination of limitation in loan recovery suits in Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (31 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Bank Employee Dismissed on Insufficient Evidence: United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Judicial Review, K.M. Joseph, Reinstatement, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law

Supreme Court Reinstates Bank Employee Dismissed on Insufficient Evidence: United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a disciplinary authority’s findings of guilt can be upheld when based on no evidence or a misappreciation of evidence. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee Judgment Date: 31

Supreme Court Reinstates Bank Employee Dismissed on Insufficient Evidence: United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns dismissal of bank employee in United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Departmental Proceedings, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Judicial Review, K.M. Joseph, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law

Supreme Court overturns dismissal of bank employee in United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can overturn a disciplinary authority’s decision if it finds the decision is not based on evidence. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee [Judgment Date]: 31

Supreme Court overturns dismissal of bank employee in United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court modifies reinstatement order for contractual employee: Divisional Controller, MSRTC vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 2(oo), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25-G, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court modifies reinstatement order for contractual employee: Divisional Controller, MSRTC vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contractual employee is entitled to reinstatement and back wages upon termination. CASE TYPE: Labour Law. Case Name: Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele. [Judgment Date]: 31 January 2022 Introduction Date

Supreme Court modifies reinstatement order for contractual employee: Divisional Controller, MSRTC vs. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top