Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court settles reservation for OBC in NEET All India Quota seats, defers decision on EWS criteria: Neil Aurelio Nunes vs. Union of India (20 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, All India Quota, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, NEET, Reservations in Education

Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in NEET AIQ Seats, Defers EWS Criteria Decision (20 January 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The legal principle addressed in this judgment is the validity of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and the criteria for determining Economically […]

Supreme Court settles reservation for OBC in NEET All India Quota seats, defers decision on EWS criteria: Neil Aurelio Nunes vs. Union of India (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022)

/ Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 36(1), Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Legislation by Incorporation, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (2022) Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 782 Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquire land using the old Land Acquisition Act of

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022)

/ Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 36(1), Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to land acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles conflict between DACP Scheme and ESIC Regulations in promotions: Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. (20 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 17, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 97, Judges, Recruitment Regulations

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in Promotions (20 January 2022) Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 772 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J Can a government body’s internal regulations override a central government scheme for employee promotions? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court settles conflict between DACP Scheme and ESIC Regulations in promotions: Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles promotion norms: DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in service matters (20 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 17, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 97, Judges, Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Service Conditions, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in Promotions LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme or the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Recruitment Regulations should govern promotions for teaching faculty at ESIC. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India &

Supreme Court settles promotion norms: DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in service matters (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: DRI Officer’s Jurisdiction Challenged (20 January 2022)

/ Bela M Trivedi, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 6, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Judges, Jurisdiction of Customs Officers

Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: DRI Officer’s Jurisdiction Challenged (20 January 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officer has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 without specific entrustment. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad vs. M/s Suncity Strips and Tubes P Ltd [Judgment

Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Appeal: DRI Officer’s Jurisdiction Challenged (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Orders Refund in Property Sale Case: Shenbagam vs. Rathinavel (20 January 2022)

/ AS Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Refuses Specific Performance, Orders Refund in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam vs. Rathinavel (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff was “ready and willing” to perform their obligations in a contract for the sale of property, a prerequisite for specific performance. CASE TYPE: Civil (Specific Performance of Contract) Case Name: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. K.K.

Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Orders Refund in Property Sale Case: Shenbagam vs. Rathinavel (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court reduces sentence in Atrocities case: Vetrivel vs. State (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 323, Judges, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(r), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(s)

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Atrocities Case: Vetrivel vs. State (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Reduction of sentence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Vetrivel vs. State Represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. Judgment Date: 19 January 2022 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court reduces sentence in Atrocities case: Vetrivel vs. State (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022)

/ Anti-Competitive Agreements, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 3, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 4, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Competition Act, 2002 applies to the tendering process for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents, specifically concerning allegations of bid rigging and cartelization. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Competition Commission of

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bank’s Dismissal of Employee for Fraud and Forgery in Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022)

/ Bank Employees, Disciplinary Proceedings, Evidence Act, Evidence Act with Section 73, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Bank’s Dismissal of Employee for Fraud and Forgery in Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a bank employee can be dismissed for misconduct, including fraud and forgery, based on a preponderance of evidence in departmental proceedings, and whether the High Court can interfere with the Industrial

Supreme Court Upholds Bank’s Dismissal of Employee for Fraud and Forgery in Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Murder Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: State of U.P. vs. Jai Dutt (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Reinstates Murder Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: State of U.P. vs. Jai Dutt (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in converting a murder conviction to grievous hurt when the victim died due to a head injury sustained during the assault. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: State of U.P. vs. Jai

Supreme Court Reinstates Murder Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: State of U.P. vs. Jai Dutt (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on land tax for vested forest land: Village Officer vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 with Section 5, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 with Section 3, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 with Section 4, Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 with Section 8, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on land tax for vested forest land: Village Officer vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether revenue authorities can be compelled to accept basic tax for land declared as vested forest land. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Village Officer and others vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph and another. [Judgment Date]: 19

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on land tax for vested forest land: Village Officer vs. Chunayamakkal Joseph (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top