Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Petitions Challenging Bonus Act Amendment: Union of India vs. United Planters Association (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Judicial Review, Labour Law, Labour Law with Section 2(13), Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Petitions Challenging Bonus Act Amendment: Union of India vs. United Planters Association (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 should be transferred to the Supreme Court. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Labour Law Case Name: Union of India vs. The […]

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Petitions Challenging Bonus Act Amendment: Union of India vs. United Planters Association (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Avitel in Contempt for Not Maintaining USD 60 Million Balance: HSBC PI Holdings vs. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 129, Contempt of Court, Contempt of Courts Act, Contempt of Courts Act with willful disobedience, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Holds Avitel in Contempt for Not Maintaining USD 60 Million Balance: HSBC PI Holdings vs. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-compliance with a court order to maintain a specific bank balance constitutes contempt of court, even if the order is executable through other means. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court Case Name:

Supreme Court Holds Avitel in Contempt for Not Maintaining USD 60 Million Balance: HSBC PI Holdings vs. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Milind Judgment in Employment Cases: Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Mahesh Kumar (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Reservation Policy, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Scheduled Tribes, Service Law, Service Law: Employment, Service Law: Termination

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Milind Judgment in Employment Cases: Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Mahesh Kumar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the ratio of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, which protected certain appointments made under the Scheduled Tribe category, can be indiscriminately applied to employment cases where a false caste certificate was used to secure a

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Milind Judgment in Employment Cases: Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Mahesh Kumar (2022) 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 Clarifies Bail Procedures and Upholds Personal Liberty: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 170, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures and Upholds Personal Liberty: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification of bail procedures and the interpretation of personal liberty in criminal cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Bail Case Name: Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 11 July 2022 Date of the

Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures and Upholds Personal Liberty: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (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 settles seniority of Munsiffs: Manoj Parihar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2022) INSC 578 (27 June 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Direct Recruitment, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Seniority, Service Law, Surya Kant

Supreme Court settles seniority of Munsiffs: Manoj Parihar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2022) INSC 578 (27 June 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the inter-se seniority of Munsiffs should be determined based on roster points or merit. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Manoj Parihar & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Supreme Court settles seniority of Munsiffs: Manoj Parihar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2022) INSC 578 (27 June 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Re-Medical Examination Timelines for Civil Services: Union of India vs. K. Rajashekhara Reddy (2022) INSC 538

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Services Examination Rules, 2014, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Re-medical Examination, Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules, 2014, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Re-Medical Examination Timelines for Civil Services: Union of India vs. K. Rajashekhara Reddy (2022) INSC 538 LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of rules regarding re-medical examinations for civil service candidates declared temporarily unfit. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Union of India vs. K. Rajashekhara Reddy. [Judgment Date]: 14 June 2022 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Re-Medical Examination Timelines for Civil Services: Union of India vs. K. Rajashekhara Reddy (2022) INSC 538 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NEET-PG Counselling Schedule, Denies Special Stray Round: Dr. Astha Goel vs. Medical Counselling Committee (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Judges, M.R. Shah, Medical Admissions, Supreme Court Judgments, Supreme Court Judgments with Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38, Supreme Court Judgments with Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370

Supreme Court Upholds NEET-PG Counselling Schedule, Denies Special Stray Round: Dr. Astha Goel vs. Medical Counselling Committee (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Medical Counselling Committee should conduct a special stray round of counselling to fill vacant NEET-PG seats after the scheduled rounds are completed. CASE TYPE: Medical Admissions/Education Case Name: Dr. Astha Goel and Ors.

Supreme Court Upholds NEET-PG Counselling Schedule, Denies Special Stray Round: Dr. Astha Goel vs. Medical Counselling Committee (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Candidates Rejected for Not Submitting Original Documents: Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (23 May 2022)

/ Appointment, Arrears of Salary, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer, Seniority, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Candidates Rejected for Not Submitting Original Documents: Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (2022) Date of the Judgment: 23 May 2022 Citation: [Not provided in the document] Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Vikram Nath, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC)

Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Candidates Rejected for Not Submitting Original Documents: Aarav Jain vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (23 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction for Obstructing Court Order: P R Adikesavan vs. Registrar General, Madras High Court (23 May 2022)

/ Bela M Trivedi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 129, Constitutional Law with Article 215, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 2(c)(iii), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction for Obstructing Court Order: P R Adikesavan vs. Registrar General, Madras High Court (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether obstructing the execution of a court-issued non-bailable warrant constitutes criminal contempt of court. CASE TYPE: Criminal Contempt of Court Case Name: P R Adikesavan vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and

Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction for Obstructing Court Order: P R Adikesavan vs. Registrar General, Madras High Court (23 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Coal Procurement Dispute: Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. EMTA Coal Limited & Anr. (20 May 2022)

/ Audit and Accounting, Breach of contract, CAG Report, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Contract Law, Contracts Law: Contractual Disputes, Contractual Disputes, Hima Kohli, Judges, Krishna Murari, N.V. Ramana, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Coal Procurement Dispute Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 5401-5404 of 2017 Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J. Can a state-owned power corporation demand reimbursement from a coal supplier based on an audit report it initially contested? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Coal Procurement Dispute: Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. EMTA Coal Limited & Anr. (20 May 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top