Appeals

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 38, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Payment Disputes

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work when there’s a discrepancy in government-prescribed rates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning a construction contract. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had rejected certain claims made by a contractor for extra work. This case clarifies how […]

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Judges, Pleadings, Terms and Conditions

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work beyond the original contract? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a construction contract dispute. The court examined whether a contractor was entitled to extra payments for stone pitching and water lead, ultimately ruling against the contractor. This judgment highlights the

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles court fee applicability on Income Tax Appeals: K. Raveendranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) INSC 707 (10 August 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Appeals, Ashok Bhushan, Court Fees, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 260A, Judges, Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 with Section 52A

Can the court fee for an income tax appeal be determined by the date of assessment or the date the appeal is filed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. This case clarifies which court fee rules apply to appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

Supreme Court settles court fee applicability on Income Tax Appeals: K. Raveendranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) INSC 707 (10 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Appeals, Ashok Bhushan, Building Regulations, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Development Control Regulations, Floor Space Index, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning building concessions should be transferred to the Supreme Court when related Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) are already pending. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Civil Case Name: Janhit Manch & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Judgment Date: 31 July 2017 Introduction Can a Public Interest

Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of non-registration of public trusts on lawsuits: Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal & Ors. (25 July 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 with Section 29, Suits

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit filed by an unregistered public trust is maintainable under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959. CASE TYPE: Civil Law Case Name: Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal & Ors. Judgment Date: 25 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court clarifies the effect of non-registration of public trusts on lawsuits: Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal & Ors. (25 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. Banumathi, Sufficient Cause

Can a delay of 3671 days in filing an appeal be condoned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a land acquisition case. The Court considered whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal due to the delay and also looked into the adequacy of compensation for fruit-bearing trees. This

Supreme Court condones delay in land acquisition appeal, enhances compensation for pomegranate and lime trees (July 19, 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court condones delay in filing appeal: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Essar Projects Ltd. (2013)

/ Appeal under Income Tax Act, 1961, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Condonation of Delay, Delay in Filing Appeal, Dipak Misra, H.L. Dattu, Income Tax Act, 1961, Judges

Date of the Judgment: July 08, 2013 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5338 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34192 of 2012) Judges: H.L. Dattu, J., Dipak Misra, J. Can a delay in filing an appeal be excused if it was due to circumstances beyond the party’s control? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court condones delay in filing appeal: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Essar Projects Ltd. (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Interim Order in Property Dispute Case: Gazal Taneja vs. MTNL (2013)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, H.L. Dattu, Interim Orders, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in vacating an interim order in a property dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Gazal Taneja & Ors. vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Judgment Date: May 8, 2013 Date of the Judgment: May 8, 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 343 Judges: Justice H.L. Dattu

Supreme Court Restores Interim Order in Property Dispute Case: Gazal Taneja vs. MTNL (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment for failing to consider application for additional evidence: Jatinder Singh vs. Mehar Singh (2008)

/ Aftab Alam, Appeals, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 27, Judges, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 19, 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J. When a party presents additional evidence in a second appeal, is it the duty of the High Court to consider such evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the High Court of Punjab and

Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment for failing to consider application for additional evidence: Jatinder Singh vs. Mehar Singh (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top