Supreme Court modifies compensation for daily wage worker: State of Uttarakhand vs. Raj Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a daily wage worker is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages upon illegal termination or monetary compensation. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name: State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar [Judgment Date]: January 07, 2019 […]
Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 12 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Hemant Gupta, J. Can an executing court review a decree based on objections to territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case,
Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review in Loan Dispute: Punjab Financial Corporation vs. Paulbro Leathers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a demand raised by a financial corporation after a settlement, but with a dispute over the calculation of the settled amount, can be quashed without examining the merits of the demand. CASE TYPE: Loan Recovery/Financial Dispute. Case
Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Kerala Abkari Act Case: Lalichan vs. State of Kerala (2019) INSC 13 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the sentence imposed under the Kerala Abkari Act was excessive. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Lalichan vs. The State of Kerala [Judgment Date]: January 7, 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019
Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Wage Claims: Ragini Sinha vs. State of Bihar (2019) Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7225 of 2012 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can an employer avoid paying minimum wages to workers by claiming they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend themselves?
Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Wage Claims: Ragini Sinha vs. State of Bihar (2019) Read Post »
Supreme Court clarifies gratuity eligibility for teachers under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Birla Institute of Technology vs. State of Jharkhand (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether teachers are considered “employees” under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and thus eligible for gratuity benefits. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name: Birla Institute of Technology vs. The State
Supreme Court Upholds Concurrent Findings on Specific Performance: Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance. CASE TYPE: Civil – Specific Performance of Contract Case Name: Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi & Ors. Judgment Date: January 07, 2019
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Mahadevappa vs. State of Karnataka (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death of a wife due to burn injuries constitutes dowry death and murder under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Mahadevappa vs. State of Karnataka Judgment Date: January
Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of MSO License Based on Security Concerns: Digi Cable Network vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of a Multi System Operator (MSO) license due to denial of security clearance is valid, and whether the principles of natural justice apply in such cases. CASE TYPE: Broadcasting Law Case
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Jagdish Chand & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused are guilty of offences under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 related to dowry death and cruelty. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Jagdish Chand & Anr. vs. State
Supreme Court clarifies re-employment of retrenched workers in U.P. Jal Nigam: Badri Vishal Pandey vs. Rajesh Mittal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retrenched daily wage workers have a right to automatic reinstatement based on a previous court order. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court/Service Law Case Name: Badri Vishal Pandey & Ors. vs. Rajesh Mittal & Ors.
Supreme Court Limits Witness Summons Under Section 311 CrPC in CBI Case: Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. CBI (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can repeatedly allow the prosecution to summon a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the prosecution has repeatedly failed to produce the witness despite multiple
