Constitutional Law with Article 141

Supreme Court clarifies compensation calculation under Motor Vehicles Act and Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Sunita Sharma (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 469 Judges: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran When a government employee dies, how should compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act be calculated if the family also receives benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue […]

Supreme Court clarifies compensation calculation under Motor Vehicles Act and Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Sunita Sharma (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court addresses delayed judgment delivery in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat (2024)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XX, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141

Supreme Court addresses delayed judgment delivery in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can issue a reasoned order after a considerable delay after pronouncing the operative part of the order? CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Case Name: Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Supreme Court addresses delayed judgment delivery in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Notional Promotion for Disabled Employee: Reserve Bank of India vs. A.K. Nair (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Disability Rights, Fundamental Rights, Service Law, Service Law with PwD Act, 1995, Service Law with PwD Act, 2016

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation in promotions, and whether relaxed qualifying standards should be applied to them. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disability Rights Case Name: Reserve Bank of India & Ors. vs. A.K. Nair & Ors. Judgment Date: 4th July 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 4th July 2023 Citation: 2023

Supreme Court Directs Notional Promotion for Disabled Employee: Reserve Bank of India vs. A.K. Nair (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Blanket Clarification on Civil Court Findings Impacting Criminal Cases: Mukesh Maganlal Doshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 157, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Refuses Blanket Clarification on Civil Court Findings Impacting Criminal Cases: Mukesh Maganlal Doshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party not originally part of a Supreme Court judgment can seek clarification of that judgment through intervention, and whether a civil court’s findings automatically quash related criminal proceedings for that

Supreme Court Refuses Blanket Clarification on Civil Court Findings Impacting Criminal Cases: Mukesh Maganlal Doshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Person Interested” in KIAD Act Land Acquisition: Gregory Patrao vs. MRPL (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Judges, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 with Section 28, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 with Section 32, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 3, M.R. Shah, Person Interested

Supreme Court Clarifies “Person Interested” in KIAD Act Land Acquisition: Gregory Patrao vs. MRPL (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a post-acquisition allottee of land is a “person interested” in land acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case Name: Gregory Patrao and Ors. vs. Mangalore Refinery

Supreme Court Clarifies “Person Interested” in KIAD Act Land Acquisition: Gregory Patrao vs. MRPL (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Ready Reckoner for Land Compensation: BSNL Wins Appeal (11 July 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Compensation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with Section 47-A, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, Land Acquisition Act with Section 23, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court on Land Acquisition Compensation: BSNL vs. Nemichand Damodardas (2022) Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3478 of 2022 Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna Can government-set “Ready Reckoner” rates be the sole basis for determining compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act? The Supreme

Supreme Court Rejects Ready Reckoner for Land Compensation: BSNL Wins Appeal (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows delayed claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (29 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Allows Delayed Claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the delay in filing a claim by a creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be condoned, considering the Supreme Court’s orders on extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case

Supreme Court allows delayed claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (29 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 23(4), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 29A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 12A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, N.V. Ramana, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Extension of limitation period for legal proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021 Date of the Judgment: 23 September

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows delayed written statements in consumer cases due to COVID-19 extension: SS Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aaditiya J. Garg (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 38, Judges, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S. Ravindra Bhat, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Delayed Written Statements in Consumer Cases Due to COVID-19 Extension: SS Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aaditiya J. Garg (2020) Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 949 Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Can a delay in filing a written statement in a consumer case be

Supreme Court allows delayed written statements in consumer cases due to COVID-19 extension: SS Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aaditiya J. Garg (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies seat of arbitration in international commercial disputes: Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited (2020) INSC 196 (05 March 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(2), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Hrishikesh Roy, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies seat of arbitration in international commercial disputes Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 196 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a clause specifying the “place of arbitration” in a contract also determine the “seat” of arbitration, especially in international commercial disputes? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies seat of arbitration in international commercial disputes: Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited (2020) INSC 196 (05 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Upgradation Under MACP Scheme: Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, R. Banumathi, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Upgradation Under MACP Scheme: Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme entitles financial upgradation to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional hierarchy. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India and Others

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Upgradation Under MACP Scheme: Union of India vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 62, R. F. Nariman, Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Limitation Act to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Sagar Sharma & Anr. vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: September 30, 2019

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top