Supreme Court Allows Uttar Pradesh to Rejoin Tehri Hydro Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh should be allowed to rejoin a suit after being set down ex parte. CASE TYPE: Original Suit Jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Case Name: State […]
Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Specific Performance Suit Due to Prior Injunction Suit: Vurimi Pullarao vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if a prior suit for injunction was filed without seeking leave of
Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a police officer can be held liable for failing to prevent a crime and apprehend criminals when they were part of a larger police force at the scene of the crime. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: V.
Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019) Date of the Judgment: October 22, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1170 Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a court order the impounding of a document for insufficient stamp duty even after a decree based
Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases of property damage. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Damage Case Name: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam and
Supreme Court Orders De Novo Inquiry in U.P. Lekhpal Dismissal Case (23 September 2019) Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 954 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can a disciplinary inquiry be deemed valid if the employee is not given a fair chance to present their case? The Supreme
Supreme Court Orders De Novo Inquiry in U.P. Lekhpal Dismissal Case (23 September 2019) Read Post »
Supreme Court directs fresh hearing on stenographer’s pay scale: Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority (2019) Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2019 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna Can an employee be denied the salary of a higher post if they have been performing the duties of that
Supreme Court directs impleadment of State in Stenographer Pay Dispute: Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government is a necessary party in a dispute regarding the pay scale of a stenographer whose services were centralized under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. CASE TYPE: Service
Supreme Court clarifies pre-deposit condition for VAT appeals: M/S. S.E. Graphites Private Limited vs. State of Telangana (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of pre-deposit requirements for filing appeals under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (APGST Act) and Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (AP VAT Act), and Telangana State VAT Act, 2005.
Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether time spent pursuing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a first appeal against that decree. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case
Supreme Court Abatement Ruling: Goli Vijayalakshmi vs. Yendru Sathiraju (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appeal abates in its entirety when one of the appellants dies and their legal representatives are not brought on record, particularly in cases involving joint and indivisible decrees. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. Yendru
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance, Orders Refund in Property Sale Dispute: Ravankar vs. Raikar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether specific performance of a sale agreement should be granted when the buyer fails to prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and has not provided sufficient evidence of payments made beyond the initial
