Constitutional Law

Supreme Court sets aside confiscation order of vehicle after acquittal of accused in cow slaughter case: Abdul Vahab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) INSC 176 (04 March 2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012, M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 with Section 11(5), M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 with Section 6

Supreme Court Sets Aside Confiscation Order After Acquittal in Cow Slaughter Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a vehicle can be confiscated under the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, after the accused persons have been acquitted in the related criminal case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Cow Slaughter Prohibition Case Name: Abdul Vahab vs. State of […]

Supreme Court sets aside confiscation order of vehicle after acquittal of accused in cow slaughter case: Abdul Vahab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) INSC 176 (04 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Excise Duty on Non-Potable Alcohol: State of Orissa & Ors. vs. M/S Utkal Distilleries Ltd. (03 March 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 with Section 2(6), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 with Section 27(1), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Entry 51 List II, Constitutional Law with Entry 84 List I, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court rules on Excise Duty on Non-Potable Alcohol: State of Orissa vs. Utkal Distilleries Ltd. (2022) Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 5666-5668 of 2009 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can a state government impose excise duty on alcohol that is unfit for human consumption? The

Supreme Court clarifies Excise Duty on Non-Potable Alcohol: State of Orissa & Ors. vs. M/S Utkal Distilleries Ltd. (03 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in favor of Homebuyers: Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja (03 March 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 12A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court permits withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in favor of Homebuyers: Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can permit the withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings initiated by homebuyers, considering a settlement between the parties and the larger interest of the homebuyers. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case

Supreme Court permits withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in favor of Homebuyers: Amit Katyal vs. Meera Ahuja (03 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Refund for Quashed 2G Licenses: Loop Telecom vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 56, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 65, Judges, Surya Kant, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 with Section 14, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Refund for Quashed 2G Licenses: Loop Telecom vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a telecom company is entitled to a refund of entry fees after its 2G licenses were quashed due to an illegal government policy. CASE TYPE: Telecom Law, Contract Law, Constitutional Law. Case Name: Loop Telecom

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Refund for Quashed 2G Licenses: Loop Telecom vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Delayed Claim in Land Dispute: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Law, Delay and Laches, Judges, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 with Section 6

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance After Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition seeking specific performance of a contract is maintainable after a significant delay and whether a fresh cause of action arises from the rejection of a belated representation. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Land

Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Delayed Claim in Land Dispute: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on work contract: Municipal Council Gondia vs. Divi Works & Suppliers (28 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Law, Judges, M. R. Shah, Specific Performance, Work Order, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on work contract: Municipal Council Gondia vs. Divi Works & Suppliers (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can issue a writ of mandamus for specific performance of a contract in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Writ Jurisdiction Case

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on work contract: Municipal Council Gondia vs. Divi Works & Suppliers (28 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Law, Judges, Limitation, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 with Section 6

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition seeking specific performance of a contract is maintainable after significant delay and whether a belated representation extends the period of limitation. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Writ Jurisdiction Case Name: Surjeet Singh

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Dehradun: Manisha Jain vs. Rajeev Jindal (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 25, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A, Family Law, Judges, Matrimonial Disputes, Transfer of Cases

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Dehradun: Manisha Jain vs. Rajeev Jindal (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of Matrimonial Suit CASE TYPE: Family Law Case Name: Manisha Jain vs. Rajeev Jindal [Judgment Date]: February 25, 2022 Date of the Judgment: February 25, 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka Can a divorce petition be

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Dehradun: Manisha Jain vs. Rajeev Jindal (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances compensation for grievous brain injuries in motor accident claim: Sri. Benson George vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) INSC 170 (25 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Compensation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Judges, Loss of Amenities, M.R. Shah, Motor Vehicle Accident Law, Pain and Suffering

Supreme Court enhances compensation for grievous brain injuries in motor accident claim Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 170 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can the compensation awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities be considered adequate when a claimant suffers grievous brain injuries in a

Supreme Court enhances compensation for grievous brain injuries in motor accident claim: Sri. Benson George vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) INSC 170 (25 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Compassionate Appointment for Son of Second Wife: Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India (24 February 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16(2), Fundamental Rights, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 16, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court on Compassionate Appointment for Children of Second Wives: Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India (2022) Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2022 Citation: Mukesh Kumar & Anr vs. The Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. /2022 arising out of SLP(C) No. 18571/2018 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.,

Supreme Court Allows Compassionate Appointment for Son of Second Wife: Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India (24 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies sub-letting under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (23 February 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14, Judges, Sub-letting, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Sub-Letting Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (2022) Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6516/2019) Judges: Vineet Saran, J, Aniruddha Bose, J. Can a tenant be evicted for allowing medical

Supreme Court clarifies sub-letting under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (23 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Notification Granting Scheduled Tribe Status to ‘Lohar’ Community in Bihar: Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (21 February 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 342, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Quashes Notification Granting Scheduled Tribe Status to ‘Lohar’ Community in Bihar LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can grant Scheduled Tribe status to a community not recognized as such under the Presidential Order. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Writ Petition Case Name: Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Supreme Court Quashes Notification Granting Scheduled Tribe Status to ‘Lohar’ Community in Bihar: Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (21 February 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top