Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Late Payment Surcharge Calculation in Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 648 (08 October 2021)

/ Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with 'Change in Law' Clause, Contract Law with Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Law, Electricity Law with Late Payment Surcharge (LPS), Indira Banerjee, Judges, Regulatory Commissions, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Late Payment Surcharge Calculation in Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 648 (08 October 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether changes in the interest rate system by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) to the Base […]

Supreme Court Upholds Late Payment Surcharge Calculation in Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 648 (08 October 2021) Read Post »

Retrial and Joint Trials: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Nasib Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 223, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 386, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court on Retrial and Joint Trials: Nasib Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can order a retrial and clubbing of proceedings from two separate FIRs, especially when an accused has been acquitted. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Nasib Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. Judgment

Retrial and Joint Trials: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Nasib Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Judges, M.R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 19

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252 Date of the Judgment: October 08, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 6252 Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna Can an appellate court waive or reduce the mandatory 75% pre-deposit required under Section

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Criteria Based on Experience in Junior Lab Technician Appointment: Srinivas K Gouda vs. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (2021)

/ BV Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Experience Criteria, Government Jobs, Judges, Selection Process, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Criteria Based on Experience in Junior Lab Technician Appointment: Srinivas K Gouda vs. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a selection committee can give weightage to experience, particularly in government institutions, when selecting candidates for a job, even if the original job advertisement did not specify experience as

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Criteria Based on Experience in Junior Lab Technician Appointment: Srinivas K Gouda vs. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Dishonour of Cheques, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 39, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 139, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether parallel prosecutions can be initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the same underlying liability when a settlement agreement has been made

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies liability of Directors in cheque bounce cases: Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya & Anr. vs. M/S. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2021) INSC 659 (08 October 2021)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Cognizance of Offences, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 141

Supreme Court Clarifies Director Liability in Cheque Dishonor Cases Date of the Judgment: 08 October 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 659 Judges: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka Can a company director be held liable in a cheque bounce case if they weren’t directly involved in the day-to-day business? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial

Supreme Court clarifies liability of Directors in cheque bounce cases: Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya & Anr. vs. M/S. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2021) INSC 659 (08 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Promotion, Service Law, Service Law with Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021) Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 688 Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka Can a government employee claim a promotion based solely on the fact that their juniors were promoted

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Limits Government Accommodation for Kashmiri Migrants: Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Supreme Court Limits Government Accommodation for Kashmiri Migrants: Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retired Kashmiri migrant government employees are entitled to retain government accommodation indefinitely. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Union of India & Anr. vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (D) Through L.Rs. Judgment Date: 7 October 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Limits Government Accommodation for Kashmiri Migrants: Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Recalls Custody Order, Cites Fraud in Child Custody Battle: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 53, Fundamental Rights, Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 10, Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 7, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Recalls Custody Order, Cites Fraud in Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Fraudulent procurement of a child custody order. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Guardianship. Case Name: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra. Judgment Date: 7 October 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 7 October 2021 Citation: Not Available Judges: Uday

Supreme Court Recalls Custody Order, Cites Fraud in Child Custody Battle: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Delay and Laches, Judges, M. R. Shah, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with Section 91(3), Service Law, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition challenging a termination order should be entertained after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Surji Devi [Judgment Date]: October 7, 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 263, Judges, Limitation Period, M. R. Shah, Revision of Assessment Order

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 263 Income Tax Revisions: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the limitation period for revision orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mohammed Meeran

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) Read Post »

Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court clarifies in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6A, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 23A, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a wife can amend her written statement to include a counterclaim seeking a declaration that her husband’s second marriage is void in a divorce proceeding. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute Case Name: Nitaben Dinesh

Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court clarifies in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top