Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Family Law, Judges, Matrimonial Disputes, Property Settlement, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can dispose of a transfer petition by facilitating a divorce by mutual consent and settlement of property disputes based on a settlement agreement reached during mediation. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Matrimonial […]

Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deportation, Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners Act, 1946 with Section 2(a), Foreigners Act, 1946 with Section 3, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Non-refoulement, Refugee Law, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the principle of non-refoulement is applicable to Rohingya refugees in India, and whether they can be protected from deportation. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Refugee Law Case Name: Mohammad Salimullah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Relieves Landowners from Returning Excess Compensation in Haryana Land Acquisition Case (2021)

/ Compensation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Relieves Landowners from Returning Excess Compensation in Haryana Land Acquisition Case (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether landowners should be required to return excess compensation received due to prior court orders, when the final compensation is reduced. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Civil Case Name: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Relieves Landowners from Returning Excess Compensation in Haryana Land Acquisition Case (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order II Rule 2, Judges, Res Judicata, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dispute exists for arbitration when a previous court order noted a settlement between parties, but no formal settlement agreement was recorded. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: V. Sreenivasa Reddy vs. B.L. Rathnamma [Judgment Date]: April 08, 2021 Date of the

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Land Acquisition in Haryana: Acquainted Realtors LLP vs. State of Haryana (2021)

/ Compensation, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court enhances land compensation in Haryana acquisition case Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 179 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J. When the government acquires land for development, how is fair compensation determined? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case concerning land

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Land Acquisition in Haryana: Acquainted Realtors LLP vs. State of Haryana (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Compensation in Haryana: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2021)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 17(2)(c), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Compensation in Haryana: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquired for industrial development. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [Judgment Date]: April 08, 2021 Date of the Judgment: April 08,

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Compensation in Haryana: Ved & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Degree Holders to Compete for Junior Engineer Posts: Puneet Sharma vs. HPSEB (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Recruitment Rules, Right to Equality, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Service Law with Promotion, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Allows Degree Holders to Compete for Junior Engineer Posts: Puneet Sharma vs. HPSEB (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering is a higher qualification than a diploma for the post of Junior Engineer. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Puneet Sharma & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. &

Supreme Court Allows Degree Holders to Compete for Junior Engineer Posts: Puneet Sharma vs. HPSEB (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Judges, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Novation, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between family members regarding shareholding in a private company is superseded by a subsequent Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) with a third-party investor, specifically concerning an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Sanjiv

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 15-Year Sentence in NDPS Act Case: Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, M. R. Shah, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 21, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 32B

Supreme Court Upholds 15-Year Sentence in NDPS Act Case: Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) can be imposed based on the quantity of the drug seized, even if the factors

Supreme Court Upholds 15-Year Sentence in NDPS Act Case: Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Winding Up Order in Debt Dispute: Shital Fibers Ltd. vs. Indian Acrylics Limited (6 April 2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 433, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 434, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Winding Up

Supreme Court Upholds Winding Up Order in Debt Dispute: Shital Fibers Ltd. vs. Indian Acrylics Limited (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a company can be wound up for failure to pay a debt when the company claims a dispute over the quality of goods supplied. CASE TYPE: Company Law/Insolvency Case Name: Shital Fibers Ltd. vs. Indian

Supreme Court Upholds Winding Up Order in Debt Dispute: Shital Fibers Ltd. vs. Indian Acrylics Limited (6 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on validity of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act in stay order cases (06 April 2021)

/ Appellate Tribunal, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 254(2A), Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Stay Orders

Supreme Court on the Validity of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act Date of the Judgment: 06 April 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 185 Judges: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Can an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) automatically vacate a stay order if an appeal isn’t decided within 365

Supreme Court rules on validity of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act in stay order cases (06 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Yogesh vs. State of Haryana (2021)

/ Circumstantial Evidence, Criminal Law, Eyewitness Testimony, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Yogesh vs. State of Haryana (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in a case of kidnapping and murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Yogesh vs. State of Haryana. [Judgment Date]: April 6, 2021 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Yogesh vs. State of Haryana (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top