Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Allows Electricity Transmission Line Construction Subject to Compensation: Century Rayon vs. IVP Limited (2019)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 164, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with Section 10, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with Section 16, Judges, Krishna Murari, N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Allows Electricity Transmission Line Construction Subject to Compensation: Century Rayon vs. IVP Limited (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain the construction of electricity transmission towers on private land when the District Magistrate has granted permission under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, subject to compensation. CASE TYPE: Civil […]

Supreme Court Allows Electricity Transmission Line Construction Subject to Compensation: Century Rayon vs. IVP Limited (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 87 of the Arbitration Act: Hindustan Construction Company vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 87, Arbitration Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Definition of Corporate Person, Fundamental Rights, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 3(7), Judges, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 87 of the Arbitration Act: Hindustan Construction Company vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the repeal of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act are constitutionally valid. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Arbitration Law Case Name: Hindustan Construction Company

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 87 of the Arbitration Act: Hindustan Construction Company vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the grounds that it was barred by

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Specific Performance Suit Due to Prior Injunction Suit: Vurimi Pullarao vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani (27 November 2019)

/ Agreement to Sell, Ajay Rastogi, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 2 Rule 2, Contract Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Pleadings, Specific Performance, Suits

Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Specific Performance Suit Due to Prior Injunction Suit: Vurimi Pullarao vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if a prior suit for injunction was filed without seeking leave of

Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Specific Performance Suit Due to Prior Injunction Suit: Vurimi Pullarao vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani (27 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Bribery: Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (27 November 2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case: Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of a public servant for accepting a bribe was valid despite inconsistencies in witness testimonies and challenges to the sanction order. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Case Name: Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (Government

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Bribery: Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (27 November 2019) Read Post »

Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction Over Service Matters: Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power in Union of India vs. P.S. Gill (27 November 2019)

/ Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 with Section 14, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 with Section 3(o), Army Act, 1950, Army Act, 1950 with Section 123, Army Act, 1950 with Section 52(f), Army Act, 1950 with Section 63, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction Over Service Matters: Union of India vs. P.S. Gill (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of the Armed Forces Tribunal’s jurisdiction over service matters, specifically regarding challenges to the convening of a General Court Martial. CASE TYPE: Armed Forces Law/Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. P.S. Gill Judgment Date:

Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction Over Service Matters: Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Power in Union of India vs. P.S. Gill (27 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (26 November 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 212, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Governor's Powers, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Governor’s decision to invite a party to form a government without a floor test can be challenged. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Writ Jurisdiction. Case Name: Shiv Sena and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of International Commercial Arbitration and the impartiality of arbitrators: Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (26 November 2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Indu Malhotra, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2019 Citation: Not Available Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a party to a contract appoint an arbitrator when that party has an interest in the outcome of the dispute? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a set of arbitration applications, clarifying

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of International Commercial Arbitration and the impartiality of arbitrators: Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of a spouse of a deceased tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997: Nasima Naqi vs. Todi Tea Company Ltd (26 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Section 2(g), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997

Supreme Court Clarifies Tenant Rights Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Nasima Naqi vs. Todi Tea Company Ltd (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the spouse of a deceased tenant is entitled to lifetime protection from eviction in non-residential premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. CASE TYPE: Tenancy Law Case Name: Nasima Naqi vs.

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of a spouse of a deceased tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997: Nasima Naqi vs. Todi Tea Company Ltd (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Admissibility of Evidence, Evidence Law, Evidence Law with Section 65-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 217, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 221, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a police officer can be held liable for failing to prevent a crime and apprehend criminals when they were part of a larger police force at the scene of the crime. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: V.

Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Prosecution of Municipal Commissioners under the Water Act: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik & Ors. (26 November 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 with Section 10, M.R. Shah, Offences by Companies, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 47, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 48

Supreme Court Clarifies Prosecution of Municipal Commissioners under the Water Act: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik & Ors. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Commissioners and Chief Officers of Municipal Councils can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Criminal Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Prosecution of Municipal Commissioners under the Water Act: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik & Ors. (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court prohibits alienation of common water bodies for industrial use: Jitendra Singh vs. Ministry of Environment & Ors. (2019) INSC 926

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 48A, Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984, Environmental Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Surya Kant, UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 with Section 117, Water Bodies Protection

Supreme Court prohibits alienation of common water bodies for industrial use: Jitendra Singh vs. Ministry of Environment & Ors. (2019) INSC 926 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can alienate common water bodies for industrial activities under the guise of providing alternatives. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Jitendra Singh vs. Ministry of

Supreme Court prohibits alienation of common water bodies for industrial use: Jitendra Singh vs. Ministry of Environment & Ors. (2019) INSC 926 Read Post »

Scroll to Top