Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, All India Services Act, 1951, All India Services Act, 1951 with Section 3, Hrishikesh Roy, IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Judges, Promotions, R. Banumathi, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the Selection Committee’s assessment of candidates for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). CASE TYPE: Service Law – Promotion to IAS Case Name: Union Public Service […]

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Drug Price Control: T.C. Healthcare vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 with Para 7, Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 with Para 9(1), Judges, Price Fixation, S. Ravindra Bhat, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Drug Price Control: T.C. Healthcare vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the price of drug formulations using sustained or continuous release technology can be fixed under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) when specific price norms for such technologies are not explicitly mentioned in the DPCO. CASE TYPE: Drug

Supreme Court Upholds Drug Price Control: T.C. Healthcare vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision: Marriage Not Proven in Property Dispute

/ Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 102, Hemant Gupta, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 7, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision: Marriage Not Proven in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage is valid when not performed with proper ceremonies and customs, and if the parties are within prohibited degrees of relationship. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Rathnamma & Ors. vs. Sujathamma & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 November

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision: Marriage Not Proven in Property Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Compensation in Housing Society Dispute: Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs. Farmer Bank Employees Society (2019)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(o), Cooperative Housing Society, Cooperative Law, Deficiency in Service, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Compensation in Housing Society Dispute: Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs. Farmer Bank Employees Society (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cooperative bank is deficient in service for not transferring land to its employees’ housing society and whether the society is entitled to claim interest in the remaining land. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case

Supreme Court Directs Compensation in Housing Society Dispute: Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs. Farmer Bank Employees Society (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of Amendment of Agreement on Arbitration Clause in construction contracts: WAPCOS Ltd. vs. Salma Dam Joint Venture (2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Accord and Satisfaction, Amendment of Agreement, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of Amendment of Agreement on Arbitration Clause in construction contracts: WAPCOS Ltd. vs. Salma Dam Joint Venture (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Amendment of Agreement (AoA) supersedes the original arbitration clause in a contract. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: WAPCOS Ltd. vs. Salma Dam Joint Venture & Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of Amendment of Agreement on Arbitration Clause in construction contracts: WAPCOS Ltd. vs. Salma Dam Joint Venture (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rafale Deal, Dismisses Review Petitions: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 340, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 17A, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Rafale Deal, Dismisses Review Petitions: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of Supreme Court judgment on the legality of the Rafale fighter jet deal. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Criminal Review Case Name: Yashwant Sinha & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through its Director & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Rafale Deal, Dismisses Review Petitions: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) Read Post »

Inter-State River Water Dispute: Supreme Court Addresses Tamil Nadu’s Plea Against Karnataka’s Dam Construction (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Constitutional Law with Article 262, Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Addresses Inter-State River Water Dispute: Tamil Nadu vs. Karnataka (2019) Date of the Judgment: November 14, 2019 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J. Can a state unilaterally construct a dam on an inter-state river without the consent of the lower riparian state? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical

Inter-State River Water Dispute: Supreme Court Addresses Tamil Nadu’s Plea Against Karnataka’s Dam Construction (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies appeal process in Central Excise cases: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (2019)

/ Adjudication Process, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Judges, Show Cause Notice, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies appeal process in Central Excise cases: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an internal order of the Central Excise Department, determining that it has jurisdiction to proceed with a matter, is appealable before the issuance of a show cause notice. CASE TYPE: Central Excise

Supreme Court clarifies appeal process in Central Excise cases: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies hotel liability for valet parking theft in consumer cases: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bailment, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Consumer Law, Deficiency in Service, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 151, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Clarifies Hotel Liability for Valet Parking Theft: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the extent of liability of hotels for theft of vehicles under valet parking. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 November 2019

Supreme Court clarifies hotel liability for valet parking theft in consumer cases: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019) Read Post »

Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Rights in Review Petitions (2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 25, D.Y. Chandrachud, Essential Religious Practice, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Ranjan Gogoi, Religious Denomination, Religious Law

Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Rights in Review Petitions (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala Temple is constitutional. CASE TYPE: Religious Rights/Constitutional Law Case Name: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association [Judgment Date]: November 14, 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: November 14, 2019

Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Rights in Review Petitions (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revokes Probate Granted Without Proper Citation: Manju Puri vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 263, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 283, Judges, Navin Sinha, Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, Rules of the High Court at Calcutta with Chapter XXXV

Supreme Court Revokes Probate Granted Without Proper Citation: Manju Puri vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a probate can be revoked if it was granted without issuing citations to legal heirs, especially when a no-objection certificate is suspected to be forged. CASE TYPE: Testamentary/Probate Law Case Name: Manju Puri vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal

Supreme Court Revokes Probate Granted Without Proper Citation: Manju Puri vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Commercial Purpose, Consumer Definition, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of ‘commercial purpose’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically whether a medical trust providing hostel facilities to its nurses qualifies as a

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top