Constitutional Law with Article 14

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (2020) INSC 895 (1 December 2020)

/ Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948 with Section 9, Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948 with Section 9A, Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Legitimate Expectation, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case Date of the Judgment: 1 December 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 895 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J. Can a state government renege on its policy promises, especially when businesses have relied on them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical […]

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (2020) INSC 895 (1 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Halts Reservation in Super Specialty Medical Courses for 2020-21: Dr. Prerit Sharma vs. Dr. Bilu B.S. (27 November 2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Education Law, Hemant Gupta, In-service Doctors, Judges, Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008, L. Nageswara Rao, Medical Admissions, Service Quota, Super Specialty Courses

Supreme Court Halts Reservation in Super Specialty Medical Courses for 2020-21: Dr. Prerit Sharma vs. Dr. Bilu B.S. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether reservations can be applied to admissions for Super Specialty Medical Courses. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Medical Admissions Case Name: Dr. Prerit Sharma & Ors. vs. Dr. Bilu B.S. & Ors. Judgment Date: 27

Supreme Court Halts Reservation in Super Specialty Medical Courses for 2020-21: Dr. Prerit Sharma vs. Dr. Bilu B.S. (27 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 65-60% Cut-off for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam: Ram Sharan Maurya vs. State of UP (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Education Law, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Uday Umesh Lalit, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981

Supreme Court Upholds 65-60% Cut-off for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam: Ram Sharan Maurya vs. State of UP (2020) Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 859 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can a state government increase the minimum qualifying marks for a recruitment exam after the exam has

Supreme Court Upholds 65-60% Cut-off for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Exam: Ram Sharan Maurya vs. State of UP (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes indefinite blacklisting for misbranding: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 464

/ Blacklisting, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Law, Contract Law with Breach of Contract, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Section 9, Judges, Krishna Murari, Misbranded Drugs, Navin Sinha, Principles of Natural Justice, R.F. Nariman, Tender

Supreme Court quashes indefinite blacklisting for misbranding: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 464 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an indefinite blacklisting order for a minor misbranding error, without a specific show cause notice, is valid. CASE TYPE: Contract Law/ Writ Jurisdiction Case Name: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Supreme Court quashes indefinite blacklisting for misbranding: Vetindia Pharmaceuticals vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 464 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice in Tender Cancellation Case: State of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Law, Contract Law with Breach of Contract, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Public Procurement, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice in Tender Cancellation Case: State of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of a tender contract without providing a hearing to the affected party violates principles of natural justice. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Public Procurement Case Name: State of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice in Tender Cancellation Case: State of U.P. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns Kerala High Court order for load test on Palarivattom Flyover: State of Kerala vs. RDS Project Limited (22 September 2020)

/ Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Government Contracts, Indira Banerjee, Infrastructure Projects, Judges, Judicial Review, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court overturns Kerala High Court order for load test on Palarivattom Flyover: State of Kerala vs. RDS Project Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with the decision of the State Government based on the report of an expert committee, by directing a load test, when the government has already decided

Supreme Court overturns Kerala High Court order for load test on Palarivattom Flyover: State of Kerala vs. RDS Project Limited (22 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes NLSIU’s separate entrance test, mandates CLAT for admissions: Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla vs. NLSIU (2020) INSC 476

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, National Law School of India Act, 1986, National Law School of India Act, 1986 with Section 10, National Law School of India Act, 1986 with Section 11, National Law School of India Act, 1986 with Section 13, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court quashes NLSIU’s separate entrance test, mandates CLAT for admissions: Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla vs. NLSIU (2020) INSC 476 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) could conduct a separate admission test instead of using the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). CASE TYPE: Education Law, Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Rakesh

Supreme Court quashes NLSIU’s separate entrance test, mandates CLAT for admissions: Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla vs. NLSIU (2020) INSC 476 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Import Restrictions on Pulses: Union of India vs. Agricas LLP (26 August 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 77, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Section 3, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Section 9A, Foreign Trade Policy, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Import Restrictions on Pulses: Union of India vs. Agricas LLP (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Central Government can impose import restrictions on pulses under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), or if such restrictions must exclusively adhere to the procedure under Section 9A of the

Supreme Court Upholds Import Restrictions on Pulses: Union of India vs. Agricas LLP (26 August 2020) Read Post »

Wage Payment During Lockdown: Supreme Court Addresses Employer Obligations in Ficus Pax Private Ltd. vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Disaster Management Act, 2005, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 10(1), Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 10(2)(l), Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 72, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Addresses Wage Payment During Lockdown: Ficus Pax Private Ltd. vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employers are obligated to pay full wages to their employees during the COVID-19 lockdown period. CASE TYPE: Disaster Management/Labour Law Case Name: Ficus Pax Private Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Wage Payment During Lockdown: Supreme Court Addresses Employer Obligations in Ficus Pax Private Ltd. vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Parity in Sub-Inspector Appointments: Nirbhay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2020)

/ Appointment, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, M.R. Shah, Selection Process, Service Law, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Denies Parity in Sub-Inspector Appointments: Nirbhay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether candidates who did not participate in or failed the physical test for Sub-Inspector appointments can claim parity with those exempted from the test. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Nirbhay Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &

Supreme Court Denies Parity in Sub-Inspector Appointments: Nirbhay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act in Leave Encashment Deductions: Union of India vs. Exide Industries Limited (2020) INSC 305 (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 145, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 43B, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act in Leave Encashment Deductions Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 305 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Hemant Gupta, J., and Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the validity of Section 43B(f) of the Income

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act in Leave Encashment Deductions: Union of India vs. Exide Industries Limited (2020) INSC 305 (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules in Promotion Dispute (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Promotion, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules in Promotion Dispute (24 April 2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of promotion criteria based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) gradings for District Judge positions. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Sujata Kohli vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 24 April 2020 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules in Promotion Dispute (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top