Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method: State of Bihar vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) INSC 4862 (10 May 2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21A, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Right to Education Act, 2009, State Education Policy, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 4862 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. (Majority Opinion by Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Concurring Opinion by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.) Can teachers who were appointed through local bodies claim […]

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method: State of Bihar vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) INSC 4862 (10 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Case Due to Lack of Reasoning in High Court Order: Jitender Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Inherent Powers of High Court, Judges

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Case Due to Lack of Reasoning in High Court Order: Jitender Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court order can be set aside for not providing reasons for its decision. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh vs. The State of Bihar Judgment

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Case Due to Lack of Reasoning in High Court Order: Jitender Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Transportation of Already Challaned Coal in Meghalaya: Lber Laloo vs. All Dimasa Students Union (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Environmental Law, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mining Law, National Green Tribunal, Supreme Court Orders

Supreme Court Allows Transportation of Already Challaned Coal in Meghalaya LEGAL ISSUE: Whether transportation of already challaned coal should be permitted despite a ban on coal mining. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Mining Law Case Name: Lber Laloo vs. All Dimasa Students Union & Ors. and Ka Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association

Supreme Court Allows Transportation of Already Challaned Coal in Meghalaya: Lber Laloo vs. All Dimasa Students Union (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019)

/ Consumer Complaint, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can dismiss a consumer complaint on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale & Anr. vs. M/s Gruhashilp

Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Class Action in Consumer Case: Anjum Hussain vs. Intellicity Business Park (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 8, Consumer, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(1)(c), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(b), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Allows Class Action in Consumer Case: Anjum Hussain vs. Intellicity Business Park (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a group of consumers with a common grievance can file a class action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even if they don’t all have the same individual purpose for purchasing a commercial unit. CASE TYPE: Consumer

Supreme Court Allows Class Action in Consumer Case: Anjum Hussain vs. Intellicity Business Park (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction, Modifies Sentence for Advocate Misconduct (10 May 2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156(3), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 2(c), Criminal Contempt, Judges, Navin Sinha

Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction, Modifies Sentence for Advocate Misconduct Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 449 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Navin Sinha, J. Can an advocate’s misconduct towards a judge be excused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an advocate who was

Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction, Modifies Sentence for Advocate Misconduct (10 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Bars Second Suit on Same Cause of Action: Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 109, Order II Rule 2, Order VII Rule 1

Supreme Court Bars Second Suit on Same Cause of Action: Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second suit is maintainable when it arises from the same cause of action as a previously filed suit, but involves a different sale deed. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Pramod Kumar & Anr. vs. Zalak

Supreme Court Bars Second Suit on Same Cause of Action: Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Kumud Salunke vs. Pandurang Gandhewar (2019)

/ Appellate Authority, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 with Section 22, Slum Authority, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 108, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Kumud Salunke vs. Pandurang Gandhewar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971, when the Appellate Authority has considered the requirements of Section 22(4) of the Act. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order: Kumud Salunke vs. Pandurang Gandhewar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Rights, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Medical Negligence

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a surgeon was negligent in operating on a patient with a low platelet count. CASE TYPE: Medical Negligence under Consumer Law Case Name: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi & Others Judgment

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “continuous service” for promotion: Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, Recruitment Rules, Seniority Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Continuous Service

Supreme Court Clarifies Continuous Service for Promotion: Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2019 Citation: Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2019, (Arising from SLP (C) No. 2784 of 2011) Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can an employee

Supreme Court clarifies “continuous service” for promotion: Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act in Cases of Post Abolition: Khetri Vikas Samiti vs. Director College Education (2019)

/ Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, M. R. Shah, Post Abolition, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 with Section 18, Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 with Rule 39

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 18 of Rajasthan Act in Cases of Post Abolition: Khetri Vikas Samiti vs. Director College Education (2019) Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 446 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M. R. Shah, J. (authored the judgment) Can an educational institution terminate employees without prior approval

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act in Cases of Post Abolition: Khetri Vikas Samiti vs. Director College Education (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Acid Attack Case: Omanakuttan vs. State of Kerala (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 320, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Acid Attack Case: Omanakuttan vs. State of Kerala (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the injuries sustained by the victim constitute “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly concerning severe bodily pain and the ability to follow ordinary pursuits. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Omanakuttan vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Acid Attack Case: Omanakuttan vs. State of Kerala (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top