Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Limited vs. Union of India (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 30, Arbitration Law with Section 33, Hima Kohli, Judges, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Limited vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view, especially on issues of contract termination and compensation for idle machinery. […]

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Limited vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Specific Performance and Public Policy: Supreme Court on Enforceability of Sale Agreements: G.T. Girish vs. Y. Subba Raju (2022) INSC 380 (18 January 2022)

/ City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 with Section 29, City of Bangalore Improvement Allotment of Site Rules, 1972, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Public Policy, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52

Supreme Court on Specific Performance of Sale Agreements and Public Policy Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 380 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can a contract that appears to violate public policy be enforced? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a case concerning the specific performance

Specific Performance and Public Policy: Supreme Court on Enforceability of Sale Agreements: G.T. Girish vs. Y. Subba Raju (2022) INSC 380 (18 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 30, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Termination, Hima Kohli, Judges, Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards, Mitigation of Damages, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view on contract interpretation. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Contract Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Wife’s Location: Sharmila Bagchi vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay (2022)

/ Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Wife’s Location: Sharmila Bagchi vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of a matrimonial dispute case. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial. Case Name: Sharmila Bagchi @ Gangopadhayay vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay. [Judgment Date]: January 18, 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 61 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Wife’s Location: Sharmila Bagchi vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Wife’s Location: Sharmila Bagchi vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay (2022)

/ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Wife’s Location: Sharmila Bagchi vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant Can a divorce case be transferred to a location convenient for the wife, especially when she has filed a maintenance petition there? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Wife’s Location: Sharmila Bagchi vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b)

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January 2022 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Land Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute (17 January 2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree of specific performance can be enforced against a bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. CASE TYPE: Property Law/Civil Case Name: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni Judgment Date: 17 January

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Seethakathi Trust Wins Against Krishna Veni in Land Dispute (17 January 2022) Read Post »

Specific Performance vs. Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 19(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 3

Supreme Court Decision on Specific Performance and Adverse Possession: Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be enforced against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who was not a party to the original suit. Also, the question of adverse possession on a small portion of land when

Specific Performance vs. Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Resolves Land Dispute in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishna Veni (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Investigate Prime Minister’s Security Breach: Lawyers Voice vs. State of Punjab (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Hima Kohli, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Provisions related to security of the Prime Minister, Public Interest Litigation, Security of Prime Minister, Special Protection Group Act, 1988, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Investigate Prime Minister’s Security Breach: Lawyers Voice vs. State of Punjab (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Inquiry into security breach of the Prime Minister. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: Lawyers Voice vs. State of Punjab & Others. [Judgment Date]: January 12, 2022 Date of the Judgment: January 12, 2022 Citation:

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Investigate Prime Minister’s Security Breach: Lawyers Voice vs. State of Punjab (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order on Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone: Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma (12 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 3, Judges, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 20

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order on Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone: Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma (2022) Date of the Judgment: 12 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 31 Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A S Bopanna, J Can developmental activities be restricted in an area declared as an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order on Mount Abu Eco-Sensitive Zone: Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma (12 January 2022) Read Post »

Child Custody in International Disputes: Supreme Court Rules in Vasudha Sethi vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 with Section 13(1), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 with Section 6, Judges

Supreme Court Rules on Child Custody in International Disputes: Vasudha Sethi vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: International child custody dispute and the principle of “best interest of the child”. CASE TYPE: Habeas Corpus, Family Law Case Name: Vasudha Sethi & Ors. vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 12 January 2022 Date

Child Custody in International Disputes: Supreme Court Rules in Vasudha Sethi vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Deputation” in Employment Contracts: Sarita Singh vs. Shree Infosoft (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Burden of Proof, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Contract Law, Deputation, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Employment Contracts, Employment Terms, Judges, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies “Deputation” in Employment Contracts: Sarita Singh vs. Shree Infosoft (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: What constitutes a “deputation” in an employment contract and the obligations of an employee upon return from overseas travel. CASE TYPE: Civil, Employment Contract Dispute Case Name: Ms Sarita Singh vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited [Judgment Date]: 12 January

Supreme Court Clarifies “Deputation” in Employment Contracts: Sarita Singh vs. Shree Infosoft (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top