Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Family Settlement: Khushi Ram vs. Nawal Singh (22 February 2021)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 15, Indian Registration Act, 1908, Indian Registration Act, 1908 with Section 17, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Registration of Documents, Succession of Property

Supreme Court Upholds Family Settlement: Khushi Ram vs. Nawal Singh (2021) Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 87 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can a family settlement be valid if it involves relatives from the maternal side? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent […]

Supreme Court Upholds Family Settlement: Khushi Ram vs. Nawal Singh (22 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Pension Scheme: Himachal Road Transport Corp. vs. Retired Employees Union (22 February 2021)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Contributory Provident Fund, Cut-off Date, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Scheme, Pension Scheme, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law, The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Pension Scheme: Himachal Road Transport Corp. vs. Retired Employees Union (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cut-off date for implementing a pension scheme can be considered discriminatory when applied to employees who retired before that date and were already covered under a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Pension Scheme: Himachal Road Transport Corp. vs. Retired Employees Union (22 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies bank’s duty of care for locker management: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India (2021)

/ Bailment, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Sections 45ZC to 45ZF, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 149, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies bank’s duty of care for locker management: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India (2021) Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 79 Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Vineet Saran Can a bank be held responsible for the loss of valuables from a locker, even if they claim

Supreme Court clarifies bank’s duty of care for locker management: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Consumer Court Order: Tata Motors Not Liable for Dealer’s Misrepresentation in Car Sale (18 February 2021)

/ Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act with Section 2(1)(g), Deficiency in Service, Hemant Gupta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit, Unfair Trade Practice

Supreme Court Overturns Consumer Court Order: Tata Motors Not Liable for Dealer’s Misrepresentation in Car Sale (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a car manufacturer can be held liable for a car dealer’s misrepresentation about the car’s model and condition, when the sale is on a principal-to-principal basis. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Law Case Name: TATA MOTORS

Supreme Court Overturns Consumer Court Order: Tata Motors Not Liable for Dealer’s Misrepresentation in Car Sale (18 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Refund and Sets Conditions for Affiliation: Lalitha R Nath vs. Kannur Medical College (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Medical College Admissions, Regulatory Compliance, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Directs Refund and Sets Conditions for Affiliation: Lalitha R Nath vs. Kannur Medical College (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Kannur Medical College (KMC) complied with orders to refund students, and the conditions for the college’s affiliation. CASE TYPE: Education Law, specifically concerning medical college admissions and regulatory compliance. Case Name: Lalitha R Nath and

Supreme Court Directs Refund and Sets Conditions for Affiliation: Lalitha R Nath vs. Kannur Medical College (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court scrutinizes share transactions in Fortis Healthcare case: Daiichi Sankyo vs. Oscar Investments (2021)

/ Contempt of Court, Contempt of Court with Court Orders, Contempt of Court with Undertakings, Corporate Law, Corporate Law with Share Transactions, Indira Banerjee, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Shareholding, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court scrutinizes share transactions in Fortis Healthcare case: Daiichi Sankyo vs. Oscar Investments (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the transfer of shares of Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL) by Fortis Healthcare Holding Private Limited (FHHPL) was in violation of court orders and undertakings. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court, Corporate Law Case Name: M/s. Daiichi Sankyo Company

Supreme Court scrutinizes share transactions in Fortis Healthcare case: Daiichi Sankyo vs. Oscar Investments (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Reinstatement of Irregularly Appointed Sub-Inspectors, Denies Relief to More Meritorious Candidates: Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Right to Information Act, 2005, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 4

Supreme Court Upholds Reinstatement of Irregularly Appointed Sub-Inspectors, Denies Relief to More Meritorious Candidates: Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2021) Date of the Judgment: 18 February 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a High Court order the reinstatement of candidates who

Supreme Court Upholds Reinstatement of Irregularly Appointed Sub-Inspectors, Denies Relief to More Meritorious Candidates: Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for Head Constable Motor Transport: Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Police Act, 1861, Police Act, 1861 with Section 2, Police Act, 1861 with Section 46(11), Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015, Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 with Rule 10, Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 with Rule 5(c)

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for Head Constable Motor Transport: Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the selection process for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for Head Constable Motor Transport: Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Refund of Court Fees in Private Settlements: High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam (2021)

/ Alternative Dispute Resolution, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 89, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Refund of court fees, Settlement of Disputes, Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 with Section 69-A, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Refund of Court Fees in Private Settlements: High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether court fees are refundable when parties settle disputes privately without court-referred alternative dispute resolution. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: The High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam & ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies Refund of Court Fees in Private Settlements: High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Consent Decree on Mesne Profits: Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. vs. Beant Singh (2021)

/ Breach of contract, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order XII Rule 6, Consent Decree, Contract Law, Judges, License Agreement, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Modifies Consent Decree on Mesne Profits: Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. vs. Beant Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of consent decrees and calculation of mesne profits. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. vs. Beant Singh Judgment Date: 17 February 2021 Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2021 Citation: (2021)

Supreme Court Modifies Consent Decree on Mesne Profits: Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. vs. Beant Singh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Refund with Interest in Unitech Land Dispute: Unitech vs. TSIIC (2021)

/ Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Act, Contract Act with Section 74, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, MR Shah

Supreme Court Orders Refund with Interest in Unitech Land Dispute: Unitech vs. TSIIC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a state entity is liable to refund payments with interest when a land development agreement fails due to lack of clear title. CASE TYPE: Contractual Dispute/Public Law Remedy Case Name: UNITECH Limited & Ors. vs. Telangana State Industrial

Supreme Court Orders Refund with Interest in Unitech Land Dispute: Unitech vs. TSIIC (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court orders fresh consideration of property dispute: Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik vs. Bisaram (2021) INSC 71

/ Aniruddha Bose, Appellate Procedure, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 103, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 92, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Property Dispute, Property Law, Remand, Sale Deed, Second Appeal, Surya Kant

Supreme Court orders fresh consideration of property dispute: Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik vs. Bisaram (2021) INSC 71 LEGAL ISSUE: The proper procedure for a High Court to follow when dealing with a second appeal where the first appellate court has erred in its assessment of facts and law. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik

Supreme Court orders fresh consideration of property dispute: Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik vs. Bisaram (2021) INSC 71 Read Post »

Scroll to Top