Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Reciprocal Agreement for Bus Permits: Ambala Bus Syndicate vs. Chandigarh Administration (26 September 2018)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 66, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 88, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 98, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Reciprocal Agreement for Bus Permits: Ambala Bus Syndicate vs. Chandigarh Administration (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 848 Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Can a unilateral scheme override a bilateral reciprocal agreement between states regarding bus permits? The Supreme Court of India recently […]

Supreme Court Upholds Reciprocal Agreement for Bus Permits: Ambala Bus Syndicate vs. Chandigarh Administration (26 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows challenge to M.P. Education Rules Amendment: Archana Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (26 September 2018)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, M.P. Education Service Rules, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law, Service Law with Amendment

Supreme Court allows challenge to M.P. Education Rules Amendment: Archana Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court’s order upholding the amendment to the M.P. Education Service Rules should prevent the appellants from challenging subsequent amendments. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Archana Rathore and Ors. vs. State of Madhya

Supreme Court allows challenge to M.P. Education Rules Amendment: Archana Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (26 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the inclusion of contract employees in Indian Broadcasting Service: Union of India vs. E. Krishna Rao (2018)

/ Contract Employees, Departmental Candidates, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 with Note 3 of Schedule I, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 with Rule 2(c), Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 with Rule 6, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Regular Service, Service Law

Supreme Court settles the inclusion of contract employees in Indian Broadcasting Service: Union of India vs. E. Krishna Rao (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contract employees of Doordarshan, later declared government servants, are entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and receive associated benefits. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India

Supreme Court settles the inclusion of contract employees in Indian Broadcasting Service: Union of India vs. E. Krishna Rao (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the role of Revisionary Court in eviction cases: Hiya Associates vs. Nakshatra Properties (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41, Eviction, Execution of Decree, Judges, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 with Section 16(1)(n), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court clarifies the role of Revisionary Court in eviction cases: Hiya Associates vs. Nakshatra Properties (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the appropriate procedure for a Revisionary Court to follow when reviewing an order from an Executing Court in an eviction case. CASE TYPE: This case falls under the ambit of

Supreme Court clarifies the role of Revisionary Court in eviction cases: Hiya Associates vs. Nakshatra Properties (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in quadruple murder case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chhaakki Lal (2018)

/ Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in quadruple murder case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chhaakki Lal (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 844 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Vineet Saran, J. Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction based on minor inconsistencies in a key witness’s testimony? The Supreme

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in quadruple murder case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chhaakki Lal (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies effect of stay on conviction in disqualification of legislators: Lok Prahari vs. Election Commission of India (26 September 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 389, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 102, Constitution of India with Article 191, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 8

Supreme Court clarifies effect of stay on conviction in disqualification of legislators: Lok Prahari vs. Election Commission of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a stay of conviction by an appellate court nullifies the disqualification of a legislator under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Election Law. Case Name: Lok

Supreme Court clarifies effect of stay on conviction in disqualification of legislators: Lok Prahari vs. Election Commission of India (26 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Forms Committee on Prison Reforms: Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (25 September 2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Prison Reforms, Public Interest Litigation, Public Interest Litigation with Inhuman Conditions, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Forms Committee on Prison Reforms: Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (25 September 2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Examination of prison conditions and implementation of prison reforms. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons Judgment Date: 25 September 2018 Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018 Citation: W.P. (C)

Supreme Court Forms Committee on Prison Reforms: Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (25 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court partially allows appeal in criminal case: Vilasini vs. State of Kerala (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Murder, Offences Against Human Body, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court partially allows appeal in Vilasini vs. State of Kerala (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was right in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Vilasini vs. The State of Kerala Judgment Date: 25 September 2018 Date of the Judgment: 25

Supreme Court partially allows appeal in criminal case: Vilasini vs. State of Kerala (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Disposes of Property Dispute Based on Amicable Settlement: C. Kannan & Ors. vs. M. Jayakumari & Anr. (25 September 2018)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXIII, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Property Disputes, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Settlement

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Can parties resolve their disputes outside of court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case, where the parties reached an amicable settlement. This judgment highlights the importance of alternative dispute resolution methods

Supreme Court Disposes of Property Dispute Based on Amicable Settlement: C. Kannan & Ors. vs. M. Jayakumari & Anr. (25 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Disqualification for Membership of Parliament and State Legislatures: Public Interest Foundation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (25 September 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 102, Constitutional Law with Article 191, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Disqualifications, Election Law, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 7, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification for Membership of Parliament and State Legislatures Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, Rohinton Fali Nariman J, A.M. Khanwilkar J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J, Indu Malhotra J. The judgment was unanimous and authored by Dipak Misra, CJI. Can the Supreme Court disqualify a

Supreme Court clarifies Disqualification for Membership of Parliament and State Legislatures: Public Interest Foundation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (25 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Disparity Between Ministerial and Executive Police Staff in Madhya Pradesh: S.H. Baig & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (25 September 2018)

/ Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 with Rule 7, Pay Scales, Police Act, 1861, Police Act, 1861 with Section 2, S.A. Bobde, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Disparity Between Ministerial and Executive Police Staff in Madhya Pradesh LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Ministerial staff in the Madhya Pradesh Police Department are entitled to pay parity with the Executive Force. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: S.H. Baig & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: 25

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Disparity Between Ministerial and Executive Police Staff in Madhya Pradesh: S.H. Baig & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (25 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, UNCITRAL Model Law, UNCITRAL Model Law with Article 20, UNCITRAL Model Law with Article 31(3)

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification of the distinction between “seat” and “venue” in international commercial arbitration agreements, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top