Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (30 July 2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(6), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Indu Malhotra, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration Act in Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti vs State of Bihar (2018) Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 694 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a procedural lapse in filing an application under Section 34 of the […]

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (30 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles interpretation of tax exemption notifications: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (30 July 2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 265, Customs Law, Customs Law with Section 25 of the Customs Act, Judges, Legislative Intent, Literal Rule, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, S. Abdul Nazeer, Statutory Interpretation, Tax Exemption

Supreme Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Interpretation: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 645 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the interpretation of

Supreme Court settles interpretation of tax exemption notifications: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (30 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court disposes of property dispute through mediation: K. Ramalingam vs. Anjalai (27 July 2018)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 89, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mediation, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court disposes of property dispute through mediation: K. Ramalingam vs. Anjalai (27 July 2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a property dispute can be resolved through mediation. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: K. Ramalingam vs. Anjalai. [Judgment Date]: 27 July 2018 Date of the Judgment: 27 July 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and

Supreme Court disposes of property dispute through mediation: K. Ramalingam vs. Anjalai (27 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Gangabishan Case (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Criminal Law, Culpable Homicide, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Judges, Murder, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Gangabishan Case (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused had the intention to commit murder or cause bodily injury likely to cause death. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Gangabishan @ Vishnu & Ors. Judgment Date: 27 July 2018 Date of the

Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Gangabishan Case (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows registration of ‘NANDHINI’ for restaurant business, clarifies trademark law: M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (26 July 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 11, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 12, Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 9

Supreme Court allows registration of ‘NANDHINI’ for restaurant business, clarifies trademark law Date of the Judgment: 26 July 2018 Citation: M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2937-2942 OF 2018 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a restaurant use a trademark similar to a well-known

Supreme Court allows registration of ‘NANDHINI’ for restaurant business, clarifies trademark law: M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. M/S. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (26 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Irretrievable Breakdown: Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh (25 July 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Irretrievable Breakdown: Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown when the parties have been living separately for a long time and there is no possibility of reconciliation. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law Case Name: Manju Kumari Singh

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Irretrievable Breakdown: Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh (25 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores 50% Deduction for Land Development Charges in Land Acquisition Case: Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma & Ors. (25 July 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restores 50% Deduction for Land Development Charges in Land Acquisition Case Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2018 Citation: Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma & Ors. (2018) INSC 682 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can the High Court reduce the deduction for developmental charges when acquiring land? The

Supreme Court Restores 50% Deduction for Land Development Charges in Land Acquisition Case: Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma & Ors. (25 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause Requirements in Share Sale Agreement: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao (2018)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Law, Breach of contract, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Memorandum of Understanding, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause Requirements in Share Sale Agreement: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a clause in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) constitutes a valid arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao and Ors. Judgment Date: July 23, 2018 Date

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause Requirements in Share Sale Agreement: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fresh maintenance proceedings in domestic dispute: Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha (23 July 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Judges, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 12

Supreme Court directs fresh maintenance proceedings in domestic dispute: Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha (2018) Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a court reduce maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 based on a summary assessment of

Supreme Court directs fresh maintenance proceedings in domestic dispute: Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha (23 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (23 July 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 144, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to protest with public order and the rights of residents. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law Case Name: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. The Union of India & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (23 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in correcting errors: Mohammed Zakir vs. Shabana & Ors. (23 July 2018)

/ Clerical Errors, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 362, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Review of Judgments, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 362 CrPC in correcting errors: Mohammed Zakir vs. Shabana & Ors. (23 July 2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in correcting errors in court orders. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Mohammed Zakir vs. Shabana & Ors. Judgment Date: 23

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in correcting errors: Mohammed Zakir vs. Shabana & Ors. (23 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds DVC’s Tariff Determination, Clarifying the Interplay Between the Electricity Act and the DVC Act (23 July 2018)

/ Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 with Section 20, Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 with Section 40, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 14, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 174, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Upholds DVC’s Tariff Determination: A Detailed Analysis Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2018 Citation: [Not Available in the Source] Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J, R. Banumathi, J. Can a regulatory body’s tariff regulations override specific provisions of a parent act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning

Supreme Court Upholds DVC’s Tariff Determination, Clarifying the Interplay Between the Electricity Act and the DVC Act (23 July 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top