Constitutional Law with Article 226

Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court Dismisses Claim for Enhanced Compensation in M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd. vs. Land Acquisition Collector (26 February 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 28A, Redetermination of Compensation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Land Compensation Claim: M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd. vs. Land Acquisition Collector (2019) Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2019 Citation: M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd. vs. Land Acquisition Collector, SLP(C)No.618 of 2018, 2019 INSC 155 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. Can a company that missed […]

Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court Dismisses Claim for Enhanced Compensation in M/S. Model Economic Township Ltd. vs. Land Acquisition Collector (26 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies High Court’s territorial jurisdiction under Article 226: Cement Workers’ Mandal vs. Global Cements Ltd (14 February 2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 20, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Jurisdiction of Courts, Writs

Cement Workers’ Mandal vs. Global Cements Ltd: Supreme Court on Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2019 Citation: Cement Workers’ Mandal vs. Global Cements Ltd (2019) INSC 120 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Can a High Court entertain a writ petition if part of the cause of

Supreme Court clarifies High Court’s territorial jurisdiction under Article 226: Cement Workers’ Mandal vs. Global Cements Ltd (14 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds No Re-evaluation Rule in Tripura Judicial Service Exam: High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XVII Rule 1, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Re-evaluation, Recruitment, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds No Re-evaluation Rule in Tripura Judicial Service Exam: High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can order re-evaluation of answer sheets when the rules governing the examination do not provide for it. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: High Court of Tripura Through The

Supreme Court Upholds No Re-evaluation Rule in Tripura Judicial Service Exam: High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Writ Petition in Family Property Dispute: N. Sankaranarayanan vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Property Disputes

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Writ Petition in Family Property Dispute: N. Sankaranarayanan vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition is maintainable for resolving private property disputes between family members. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: N. Sankaranarayanan vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. Judgment Date: 31 January

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Writ Petition in Family Property Dispute: N. Sankaranarayanan vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds State Policy on compassionate appointment: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019)

/ Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds State Policy on Compassionate Appointment: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dependent of a deceased government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment if another family member is already employed by the State, even if they live separately. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Himachal

Supreme Court upholds State Policy on compassionate appointment: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Project, Vacates Status Quo in Land Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 67, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Project, Vacates Status Quo in Land Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can order a status quo on construction of an electricity sub-station when the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of title or possession over the disputed land.

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Project, Vacates Status Quo in Land Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on contract employee reinstatement: APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Employees, Departmental Enquiry, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, M.R. Shah, Reinstatement, Service Law

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on contract employee reinstatement: APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract employee, dismissed after a departmental inquiry, is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service based on a previous judgment concerning employees terminated without inquiry. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Depot Manager, APSRTC vs.

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on contract employee reinstatement: APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for re-engaged contract employees: APSRTC vs. B. Venkataiah (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Employees, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, M.R. Shah, Regularization, Service Law

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for re-engaged contract employees: APSRTC vs. B. Venkataiah (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a re-engaged contract employee is entitled to continuity of service from the date of their initial termination until their re-engagement for the purpose of regularization, even if the termination was not challenged. CASE

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for re-engaged contract employees: APSRTC vs. B. Venkataiah (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on reinstatement of employee after departmental enquiry: APSRTC vs. G. Kondal Rao (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Continuity of Service, Departmental Enquiry, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, M.R. Shah, Reinstatement, Service Law

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on reinstatement of employee after departmental enquiry: APSRTC vs. G. Kondal Rao (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee can be reinstated with continuity of service after being terminated following a departmental enquiry that found them guilty of misconduct. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: APSRTC & Ors. vs. G.

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on reinstatement of employee after departmental enquiry: APSRTC vs. G. Kondal Rao (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for contract employees dismissed after inquiry: Depot Manager vs. S. Krishna (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Continuity of Service, Departmental Inquiry, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law, Termination of Service

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for contract employees dismissed after inquiry: Depot Manager vs. S. Krishna (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract employee, dismissed after a departmental inquiry, is entitled to continuity of service upon re-engagement. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Depot Manager & Ors. vs. Sri S.

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for contract employees dismissed after inquiry: Depot Manager vs. S. Krishna (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Property Disputes

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for resolving private property disputes. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. Judgment Date: 03 December

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case: Johra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) INSC 1025 (03 December 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 1025 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a court issue orders affecting parties without giving them a chance to be heard? The Supreme Court recently addressed this fundamental

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case: Johra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) INSC 1025 (03 December 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top