Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds NCMEI’s Power to Declare Minority Status of Existing Educational Institutions: Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny vs. State of West Bengal (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 30, Fundamental Rights, Judges, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 with Section 10, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 with Section 11(f), National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 with Section 12, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds NCMEI’s Power to Declare Minority Status of Existing Educational Institutions: Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny vs. State of West Bengal (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 327 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., R.F. Nariman, J. (authored the judgment) Can an educational institution, initially established as a […]

Supreme Court Upholds NCMEI’s Power to Declare Minority Status of Existing Educational Institutions: Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny vs. State of West Bengal (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “ascertained money” and arbitrator appointment in Madhya Pradesh arbitration: Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judges, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 with Section 2(d), Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 with Section 4(3)(iii), Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies “ascertained money” and arbitrator appointment in Madhya Pradesh arbitration: Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2018 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4017 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 6513 OF 2018) Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. Can

Supreme Court clarifies “ascertained money” and arbitrator appointment in Madhya Pradesh arbitration: Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances compensation in motor accident case: Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs. New India Assurance (2018)

/ Compensation Calculation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Future Income Prospects, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Motor Accident Law, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court enhances compensation in motor accident case: Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs. New India Assurance (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation in a motor accident claim, specifically regarding future income prospects and deductions for personal expenses. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Case Name: Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi & Anr. vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited

Supreme Court enhances compensation in motor accident case: Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs. New India Assurance (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Statements: Shanker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Human Body, S. Abdul Nazeer, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(2)(5)

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Statements LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained when there are material contradictions in the statements of the key prosecution witnesses. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Shanker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment Date: April 18, 2018 Date of

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Statements: Shanker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Land Grabbing Case: M. Durga Singh & Ors. vs. Yadagiri & Ors. (2018)

/ Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 with Section 8(1), Civil Procedure, Deepak Gupta, Estoppel, Judges, Jurisdiction, Land Grabbing, Madan B. Lokur, Res Judicata

Supreme Court Dismisses Land Grabbing Claim: Durga Singh vs. Yadagiri (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appellants’ claim of land grabbing against the respondents is valid, considering previous civil suits and the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. CASE TYPE: Land Grabbing/Civil Case Name: M. Durga Singh & Ors. vs. Yadagiri & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Land Grabbing Case: M. Durga Singh & Ors. vs. Yadagiri & Ors. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Alimony Case for Re-evaluation: Jalendra Padhiary vs. Pragati Chhotray (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hindu Marriage Act, 1954, Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 with Section 13, Judges, Matrimonial Disputes, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Remands Alimony Case for Re-evaluation: Jalendra Padhiary vs. Pragati Chhotray (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine and upholding the order of the Family Court regarding permanent alimony. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute (Family Law) Case Name: Jalendra Padhiary vs. Pragati Chhotray Judgment Date: April 17,

Supreme Court Remands Alimony Case for Re-evaluation: Jalendra Padhiary vs. Pragati Chhotray (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Union’s Decision to Scrap Limited Competitive Exam for IPS: Lt. Cdr. R.M. Ramesh vs. Union of India (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Deepak Gupta, Indian Police Service, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Madan B. Lokur, Recruitment, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954

Supreme Court Upholds Union’s Decision to Scrap Limited Competitive Exam for IPS: Lt. Cdr. R.M. Ramesh vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Union of India’s decision to scrap the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) for recruitment to the Indian Police Service (IPS) was legal and valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Lt.

Supreme Court Upholds Union’s Decision to Scrap Limited Competitive Exam for IPS: Lt. Cdr. R.M. Ramesh vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute: Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur (17 April 2018)

/ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 26, Injunctions, Judges, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 41

Supreme Court Refuses Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute: Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Indian court can grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain a party from pursuing a divorce petition in a foreign court when a divorce petition is already pending in India. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute, Civil Case Name: Dinesh

Supreme Court Refuses Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute: Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur (17 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment Based on Initial Check-list: Thahira vs. Administrator, Lakshadweep (2018)

/ Appointment, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Selection Process, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment Based on Initial Check-list: Thahira vs. Administrator, Lakshadweep (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court should interfere with the selection process when the candidate did not raise objections within the stipulated time. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Thahira P. vs. The Administrator, UT of Lakshadweep & Ors. [Judgment Date]: April

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment Based on Initial Check-list: Thahira vs. Administrator, Lakshadweep (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree: Tenant Loses Benefit of Rent Act Due to Son’s House Ownership

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, R. K. Agrawal, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with Section 20(2)(a), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with Section 20(4), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with Section 3(g)

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree: Tenant Loses Benefit of Rent Act Due to Son’s House Ownership LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant can claim protection from eviction under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, if their son, a family member, owns a house in the same

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree: Tenant Loses Benefit of Rent Act Due to Son’s House Ownership Read Post »

Supreme Court Protects Long-Serving Teacher Despite Qualification Issue: Syed Aftab Haider vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

/ Employment Law, Equity in Employment, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, Service Law, Teacher Employment

Supreme Court Protects Long-Serving Teacher Despite Qualification Issue: Syed Aftab Haider vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher with long service can be removed for lacking requisite qualifications. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Syed Aftab Haider vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Judgment Date]: April 17, 2018 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Protects Long-Serving Teacher Despite Qualification Issue: Syed Aftab Haider vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on family property rights: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289

/ Arun Mishra, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 with Section 2(a), Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 with Section 4, Family Property, Judges, Property Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Rules on Family Property Dispute: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289 Date of the Judgment: 16th April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 289 Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Can a property acquired in the name of one family member be considered family property, even if other family

Supreme Court rules on family property rights: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289 Read Post »

Scroll to Top