Civil Procedure

Supreme Court Restrains Appointment of Principal in College Dispute: Dr. Vandana Tyagi vs. Apeejay Saraswati P.G. College (9 February 2018)

/ Civil Law, Interim Orders, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Letters Patent Appeal, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law

Supreme Court Restrains Appointment of Principal in College Dispute: Dr. Vandana Tyagi vs. Apeejay Saraswati P.G. College Date of the Judgment: 9 February 2018 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can an interim order restrain a college principal from performing her duties? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent appeal, […]

Supreme Court Restrains Appointment of Principal in College Dispute: Dr. Vandana Tyagi vs. Apeejay Saraswati P.G. College (9 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 2(o), Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 2(t), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of electronic evidence and the use of videography in crime scene investigations. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Evidence Law Case Name: Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh Judgment Date: 30 January 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes Read Post »

Supreme Court disposes of land acquisition compensation appeals: Nachhatar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018)

/ Appeals, Civil Law, Compensation, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court disposes of land acquisition compensation appeals: Nachhatar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Land acquisition compensation. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Nachhatar Singh Etc. Etc. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. [Judgment Date]: January 22, 2018 Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2018 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Kurian

Supreme Court disposes of land acquisition compensation appeals: Nachhatar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Injunction Against Nuisance Causing Flour Mill: Ramji Singh Patel vs. Gyan Chandra Jaiswal (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Cause of Action, Civil Law, Continuing Nuisance, Injunction, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Private Nuisance

Supreme Court Restores Injunction Against Nuisance Causing Flour Mill: Ramji Singh Patel vs. Gyan Chandra Jaiswal (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit seeking injunction against a nuisance is barred by limitation if the source of the nuisance changed over time. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Ramji Singh Patel vs. Gyan Chandra Jaiswal [Judgment Date]: January

Supreme Court Restores Injunction Against Nuisance Causing Flour Mill: Ramji Singh Patel vs. Gyan Chandra Jaiswal (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Case Due to Lack of Notice: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Kaliyavumkal (2018)

/ Civil Procedure, Consumer Dispute Redressal, Consumer Protection Act, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Notice Requirements, Procedural Fairness, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Case Due to Lack of Notice: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Kaliyavumkal (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can proceed ex-parte without ensuring proper notice to the parties. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case Name: M/s Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Case Due to Lack of Notice: Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Kaliyavumkal (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Release in Motor Accident Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar (2017)

/ Civil Procedure, Compensation Release, Court Orders, Judges, Motor Accident Law, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the location of deposited compensation for release to the claimant. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. [Judgment Date]: December 1, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: December 1, 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon’ble

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Release in Motor Accident Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Disposes of Property Dispute Following Out-of-Court Settlement: V.M. Manomani & Ors. vs. Shanthi (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Order XXIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Out of Court Settlement

Can a civil appeal be disposed of if the parties have settled their dispute outside of court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of V.M. Manomani & Ors. vs. Shanthi. This case involved a property dispute. The court disposed of the appeal after the parties informed the court of their

Supreme Court Disposes of Property Dispute Following Out-of-Court Settlement: V.M. Manomani & Ors. vs. Shanthi (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs Tribunal to Expedite Constable Appointment Case: Shaik Shahanaj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (24 November 2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, State Administrative Tribunal, Timely Disposal of Cases

Can a delay in producing a non-creamy layer certificate cost someone a job? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning the selection of a police constable. The court directed the State Administrative Tribunal to expedite the matter. This case highlights the importance of timely submission of documents in government

Supreme Court directs Tribunal to Expedite Constable Appointment Case: Shaik Shahanaj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (24 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles service appointment dispute in Jammu and Kashmir: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan (2017) INSC 967 (21 November 2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Appointment, Arrears, Contempt of Court, Contempt Proceedings, Costs, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be held liable for costs and contempt proceedings for delaying the appointment of a candidate to the Kashmir Administrative Service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan & Ors. Judgment Date: 21 November 2017 Can a State

Supreme Court settles service appointment dispute in Jammu and Kashmir: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan (2017) INSC 967 (21 November 2017) Read Post »

Appealability of Contempt Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies in ECL Finance Ltd. vs. Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati (2017)

/ Appealability, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 19, Contempt Proceedings, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Appealability of an order issuing notice in a contempt petition. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court Case Name: ECL Finance Ltd vs. Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati & Ors. Judgment Date: 16 November 2017 Can an appeal be filed against a notice issued in a contempt petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical

Appealability of Contempt Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies in ECL Finance Ltd. vs. Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017)

/ Amendment of Plaint, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. This was a two-judge bench. Can a High Court summarily dismiss a case without addressing the merits? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the amendment of a plaint. The core

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules against forfeiture of security deposit in auction case: Suresh Kumar Wadhwa vs. State of M.P. (25 October 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Auction Law, Breach of contract, Forfeiture Clause, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 74, Judges, Public Auction, R.K. Agrawal, Security Deposit, Terms and Conditions

Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 923 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a government body forfeit a security deposit when the terms of the auction were not fully disclosed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a public auction of land.

Supreme Court rules against forfeiture of security deposit in auction case: Suresh Kumar Wadhwa vs. State of M.P. (25 October 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top