Constitutional Law with Article 77

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 77, Dipankar Datta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Manmohan, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 with Section 4, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 with Section 5

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 12th February, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 201 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J. Was the selection process for the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) flawed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India & Ors., examining […]

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Change in Law” under Power Purchase Agreements: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2024)

/ Business Efficacy, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 77, Contract Law, Contract Law with PPA, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 25, Interpretation of Contracts, Notifications

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” under Power Purchase Agreements: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2024) Date of the Judgment: 5th November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 833 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a press release announcing a Cabinet decision be considered “law” under a

Supreme Court clarifies “Change in Law” under Power Purchase Agreements: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2024) 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 »

Scroll to Top