Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in Family Property Dispute: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram (25 November 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 23, Judges, M. R. Shah, Property Dispute

Supreme Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in Family Property Dispute: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a settlement agreement reached through mediation, encompassing properties beyond the original suit’s scope, is binding and enforceable. CASE TYPE: Contempt Jurisdiction/Civil Case Name: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram & Ors. Judgment Date: 25 November 2019 Date of the Judgment: […]

Supreme Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in Family Property Dispute: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram (25 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies assignment of contract rights in property sale: Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar (2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Contingent Contract, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 40, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 53, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 15(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 40

Supreme Court clarifies assignment of contract rights in property sale: Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract for sale of property can be assigned to a third party without the consent of the original seller? CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Specific Performance Case Name: Kapilaben & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth

Supreme Court clarifies assignment of contract rights in property sale: Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tax on Share Buybacks: Genpact India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (22 November 2019)

/ Assessment and Appeals, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 391, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 77A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 115QA, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 246A, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Tax on Share Buybacks: Genpact India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a company is liable to pay additional income tax on buyback of shares under Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even when the buyback is part of a scheme of arrangement approved by the

Supreme Court Upholds Tax on Share Buybacks: Genpact India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (22 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Orders in Smuggling Case: Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan (2019)

/ COFEPOSA Act, 1974, COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with Section 13, COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with Section 5-A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 22(5), Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 104, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 108, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Preventive Detention, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Orders in Smuggling Case: Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) is valid when the detenu is already in judicial custody. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Preventive Detention) Case Name: Union of

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Orders in Smuggling Case: Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Regularization Benefits for Entomologists: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Harleen Kaur & Ors. (2019)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Monetary Benefits, Regularization, Service Law, Service Law with State of Karnataka v Umadevi

Supreme Court Modifies Regularization Benefits for Entomologists: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Harleen Kaur & Ors. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Municipal Corporation to provide monetary benefits to the employees from 2008, after directing regularization. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Harleen Kaur

Supreme Court Modifies Regularization Benefits for Entomologists: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Harleen Kaur & Ors. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Defines Specific Endowment Under Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act: W.N. Allal Sundaram vs. Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department (22 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Endowment Law, Judges, Public Purpose, Religious Charity, Religious Institution, Specific Endowment, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 with Section 6(19)

Supreme Court Defines Specific Endowment Under Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act: W.N. Allal Sundaram vs. Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Definition of “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: W.N. Allal Sundaram vs. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Admn.

Supreme Court Defines Specific Endowment Under Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act: W.N. Allal Sundaram vs. Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department (22 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (22 November 2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Coparcenary Property, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hindu Law, Hindu Law with Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Judges, Partition of Property, Property Law, Property Rights, Transfer of Property

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The case addresses the devolution of ancestral property under Hindu law, specifically concerning the rights of a granddaughter whose father predeceased his grandfather, in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. CASE TYPE: Civil

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (22 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 96(2), Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is maintainable after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 27, Ajay Rastogi, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Natural Justice, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 543(10)(b)

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a disciplinary inquiry is vitiated by non-supply of documents and delay in proceedings. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh Judgment Date: 21 November 2019 Date of the Judgment: 21

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Reversion Order for Town Planner Due to Lack of Hearing: Aurangabad Municipal Corporation vs. Jayant Kharwadkar (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 with Section 455(i), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, Reversion of Employee, Right to be Heard, Service Law

Supreme Court Quashes Reversion Order for Town Planner Due to Lack of Hearing: Aurangabad Municipal Corporation vs. Jayant Kharwadkar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a municipal corporation can revert an employee from their promoted position without providing them an opportunity to be heard. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Aurangabad Municipal Corporation vs. Jayant S/O Sarvottamrao

Supreme Court Quashes Reversion Order for Town Planner Due to Lack of Hearing: Aurangabad Municipal Corporation vs. Jayant Kharwadkar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the extent of a victim’s counsel’s role in criminal trials: Rekha Murarka vs. State of West Bengal (20 November 2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 225, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 24, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 301, Deepak Gupta, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Clarifies Victim’s Counsel Role in Criminal Trials Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1304 Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta Can a victim’s counsel independently conduct a criminal trial, or is their role limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies the extent of a victim’s counsel’s role in criminal trials: Rekha Murarka vs. State of West Bengal (20 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Rebate for Fly Ash Industries: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Birla Corporation Limited (2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 301, Dinesh Maheshwari, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 21, Judges, Tax Rebates, Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 with Section 5

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Rebate for Fly Ash Industries: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Birla Corporation Limited (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can rescind a tax rebate notification for industries that had already commenced production based on the promise of the rebate. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Rebate for Fly Ash Industries: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Birla Corporation Limited (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top