Contract Act, 1872

Supreme Court Mandates Pension for SBI Employees with 15 Years Service Under VRS 2000 Scheme: Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2 March 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2020 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, and Justice B.R. Gavai Can a public sector bank deny pension benefits to employees who opted for voluntary retirement after completing 15 years of service, as per […]

Supreme Court Mandates Pension for SBI Employees with 15 Years Service Under VRS 2000 Scheme: Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the grounds that it was barred by

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Clause 59 in construction contracts: K. Marappan vs. The Superintending Engineer (27 March 2019)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 15, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 30, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 33, Construction Contracts, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 70, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 263 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., K.M. Joseph, J. Can a contractor claim compensation for additional expenses incurred due to unforeseen circumstances during a project, even if the contract has a clause limiting such claims? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Clause 59 in construction contracts: K. Marappan vs. The Superintending Engineer (27 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Scale for Officiating Employees: State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Pay Scale, Punjab Civil Services Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 4.13

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to the pay scale of a higher post when they are officiating in that post, despite conditions in the appointment order stating otherwise. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Punjab & Another vs. Dharam Pal [Judgment Date]: September 5, 2017 Date of the Judgment: September

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Scale for Officiating Employees: State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top