Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Finding of Negligence in Road Accident Case: Archit Saini vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) INSC 100 (09 February 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Contributory Negligence, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Negligence, Road Regulations, 1989, Road Regulations, 1989 with Rule 15

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Finding of Negligence in Road Accident Case Date of the Judgment: 09 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 100 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Can a High Court overturn a well-reasoned finding of fact by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal? The Supreme Court addressed this question […]

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Finding of Negligence in Road Accident Case: Archit Saini vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) INSC 100 (09 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs States to Implement Child Rights Laws Effectively: Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 102 (9 February 2018)

/ Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 with Section 13, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 with Section 17, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 with Section 3, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with Section 106, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with Section 107, Juvenile Justice Boards, Madan B. Lokur

Supreme Court Directs States to Implement Child Rights Laws Effectively Date of the Judgment: 9 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 102 Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J. Can the judiciary intervene when the State fails to protect the fundamental rights of vulnerable children? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in

Supreme Court Directs States to Implement Child Rights Laws Effectively: Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 102 (9 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies fraudulent trading in derivatives: SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading (2018)

/ Adjudication, Derivatives Market, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15HA, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15T, Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, Securities Law

Supreme Court on Synchronized Trading and Market Manipulation in Derivatives LEGAL ISSUE: Whether synchronized and reversed trades in the derivatives market constitute fraudulent and unfair trade practices. CASE TYPE: Securities Law Case Name: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd. Judgment Date: 8 February 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 8

Supreme Court clarifies fraudulent trading in derivatives: SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Meaning of “Paid” and “Tender” under Section 24 of the 2013 Act in Land Acquisition Cases (8 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 34, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapses Under Section 24 of the 2013 Act LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “paid” and “tender” in land acquisition and the effect of non-deposit of compensation in court. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 8 February 2018 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Settles Meaning of “Paid” and “Tender” under Section 24 of the 2013 Act in Land Acquisition Cases (8 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

/ Bail, Criminal Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Murder, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court’s grant of bail was justified in a case involving a murder motivated by communal hatred. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Mubin Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Judgment Date: 08

Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Review of Vacancy Orders Under UP Urban Buildings Act: Rajendra Kumar Verma vs. Additional District Magistrate (2018) INSC 88 (08 February 2018)

/ Eviction, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Rent Control, 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 16

Supreme Court Clarifies Review of Vacancy Orders Under UP Urban Buildings Act Date of the Judgment: 08 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 88 Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Can a District Magistrate review an order regarding a building’s vacancy under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)

Supreme Court Clarifies Review of Vacancy Orders Under UP Urban Buildings Act: Rajendra Kumar Verma vs. Additional District Magistrate (2018) INSC 88 (08 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of State Transport Authority Decision by Majority: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra Gupta (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 145, Judges, Judicial Review, Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 68, State Transport Authority

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of State Transport Authority Decision by Majority: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra Gupta (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decision by a multi-member body like the State Transport Authority is valid if it is made by a majority of members present during the hearing, even if one member is transferred before

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of State Transport Authority Decision by Majority: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra Gupta (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for determining legal representatives in pending appeals: Mahanth Satyanand vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan (2018) INSC 89 (8 February 2018)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, Legal Representatives, N.V. Ramana, Order 22 Rule 5, Pending Appeals, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Determining Legal Representatives in Pending Appeals Date of the Judgment: 8 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 89 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can a High Court allow multiple claimants to represent a deceased party in an appeal without first determining who the actual legal representative is? The

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for determining legal representatives in pending appeals: Mahanth Satyanand vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan (2018) INSC 89 (8 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to protect teachers in Rajasthan: Munna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law

Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to protect teachers in Rajasthan: Munna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether teachers can be removed from service due to a revised merit list after a High Court order. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Munna Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to protect teachers in Rajasthan: Munna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Additional Payment for Messenger Work: J. Linet vs. Food Corporation of India (2018)

/ Additional Payment, Fair Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law

Supreme Court Directs Additional Payment for Messenger Work: J. Linet vs. Food Corporation of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Entitlement to additional payment for work done in a different post in addition to regular duties. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: J. Linet vs. The Assistant Manager (Depot), Food Corporation of India & Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Directs Additional Payment for Messenger Work: J. Linet vs. Food Corporation of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Evidence Destruction Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Dinesh (2018)

/ Criminal Law, Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Evidence Destruction Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Dinesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness, who remained silent for a prolonged period after witnessing a crime, is sufficient for conviction. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: State of Maharashtra vs. Dinesh Judgment Date: 07 February 2018 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Evidence Destruction Case: State of Maharashtra vs. Dinesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds No-Claim Certificate in Construction Dispute: ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. (7 February 2018)

/ Amitava Roy, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Proceedings, Construction Contract Disputes, Contract Law, Contract Law with Accord and Satisfaction, Contractual Obligations, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Upholds No-Claim Certificate in Construction Dispute: ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by a contractor can be invalidated on grounds of duress or coercion, allowing for arbitration of subsequent claims. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs.

Supreme Court Upholds No-Claim Certificate in Construction Dispute: ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. (7 February 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top