Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court quashes indefinite blacklisting for misbranding: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 464

/ Blacklisting, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Law, Contract Law with Breach of Contract, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 9, Judges, Krishna Murari, Misbranded Drugs, Navin Sinha, Principles of Natural Justice, R.F. Nariman, Tender

Supreme Court quashes indefinite blacklisting for misbranding: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 464 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an indefinite blacklisting order for a minor misbranding error, without a specific show cause notice, is valid. CASE TYPE: Contract Law/ Writ Jurisdiction Case Name: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another […]

Supreme Court quashes indefinite blacklisting for misbranding: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 464 Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Disclosure of Segmented Offers in Telecom Tariff Dispute: TRAI vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2020) INSC 721 (06 November 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Judges, Regulatory Authority, S.A. Bobde, Telecom Law, Telecom Law with Section 11(1)(b)(i), Telecom Law with Section 11(2), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Disclosure of Segmented Offers in Telecom Tariff Dispute Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 721 Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a telecom regulator demand details of segmented offers from service providers to ensure fair pricing? The Supreme Court addressed this question in

Supreme Court Orders Disclosure of Segmented Offers in Telecom Tariff Dispute: TRAI vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2020) INSC 721 (06 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Patna High Court’s Jurisdiction in Pension Dispute: Shanti Devi vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 20, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Patna High Court’s Jurisdiction in Pension Dispute: Shanti Devi vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Patna High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the stoppage of pension when the petitioner resides and receives pension within its jurisdiction, even though the employer is located elsewhere.

Supreme Court Upholds Patna High Court’s Jurisdiction in Pension Dispute: Shanti Devi vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Nominee Officer Due to Non-Conviction of Company in Food Adulteration Case (5 November 2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 401, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 with Section 97, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences by Companies, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with Section 17

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Nominee Officer Due to Non-Conviction of Company in Food Adulteration Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a nominated officer of a company can be convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 if the company itself is not convicted. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Food Adulteration). Case Name: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs.

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Nominee Officer Due to Non-Conviction of Company in Food Adulteration Case (5 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Atrocities Act Charges in Property Dispute: Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Hemant Gupta, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 504, Indian Penal Code with Section 506, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, 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)

Supreme Court Quashes Atrocities Act Charges in Property Dispute: Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in cases of property disputes where caste-based insults are alleged. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand &

Supreme Court Quashes Atrocities Act Charges in Property Dispute: Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Ban on Disinfectant Spray on Humans: Gurusimran Singh Narula vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 10, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 36, Disinfectant Regulation, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Public Health Law, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Directs Ban on Disinfectant Spray on Humans: Gurusimran Singh Narula vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether spraying disinfectants on human beings violates their right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation related to Disaster Management Case Name: Gurusimran Singh Narula vs. Union of

Supreme Court Directs Ban on Disinfectant Spray on Humans: Gurusimran Singh Narula vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintenance Laws and Procedures in Matrimonial Disputes (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 125, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 25, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Guidelines on Maintenance in Matrimonial Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Guidelines for maintenance in matrimonial disputes, addressing overlapping jurisdictions and enforcement. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Criminal Procedure. Case Name: Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 4 November 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 730 Judges: Indu Malhotra, J.,

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintenance Laws and Procedures in Matrimonial Disputes (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Application to Summon Records in Adoption Dispute: Biraji vs. Surya Pratap (2020)

/ Adoption Deed, Adoption Law, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 16, Evidence, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pleadings, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Application to Summon Records in Adoption Dispute: Biraji vs. Surya Pratap (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can reject an application to summon records filed at a belated stage after the closure of evidence, especially when the issue was known to the applicant from the beginning. CASE TYPE: Civil

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Application to Summon Records in Adoption Dispute: Biraji vs. Surya Pratap (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Eligibility Criteria for Peon Posts: Punjab National Bank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Eligibility Criteria, Employment Law, Judges, M. R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy, Recruitment, Suppression of Facts

Supreme Court Settles Eligibility Criteria for Peon Posts: Punjab National Bank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate can be denied employment for possessing a higher qualification than prescribed for the post, and whether suppressing the fact of having a higher qualification is a valid ground for cancellation of candidature. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Settles Eligibility Criteria for Peon Posts: Punjab National Bank vs. Anit Kumar Das (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in property dispute: Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat (2020) INSC 490 (3 November 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 114, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 226, Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in property dispute: Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat (2020) INSC 490 (3 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020)

/ Criminal Law, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Eyewitness Testimony, Forensic Evidence, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder case, particularly when there are inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rajesh @ Sarkari

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the interplay between Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act in favor of Homebuyers: Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2 November 2020)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(4), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 3, Consumer Rights, Judges, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 18, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 79, Real Estate Regulation, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights: Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the remedies available to homebuyers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are additional to those under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law, Real Estate Law Case Name: M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni

Supreme Court settles the interplay between Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act in favor of Homebuyers: Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2 November 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top