General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Compensation Under 2013 Act: Bharat Petroleum vs. Nisar Ahmed (2022)

/ General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Jammu & Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, Judges, Krishna Murari, Land Acquisition Law, Land Acquisition Law with Section 24, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Compensation Under 2013 Act: Bharat Petroleum vs. Nisar Ahmed (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquisitions initiated under the Jammu & Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Bharat Petroleum […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Compensation Under 2013 Act: Bharat Petroleum vs. Nisar Ahmed (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Defines “Initiated” in Land Acquisition Act: Haryana State Industrial vs. Deepak Aggarwal (28 July 2022)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, C.T. Ravikumar, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 114, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Initiation Under 2013 Act LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the term “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, concerning land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case Name: Haryana State Industrial

Supreme Court Defines “Initiated” in Land Acquisition Act: Haryana State Industrial vs. Deepak Aggarwal (28 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Deposit Rules Under Consumer Protection Act: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV (2022)

/ Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act with Section 23, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Hemant Gupta, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Deposit Rules Under Consumer Protection Act: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of deposit requirements for appeals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vs. the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV Judgment Date: 15 February

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Deposit Rules Under Consumer Protection Act: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV (2022) Read Post »

Mental Disability and Workplace Discrimination: Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings (17 December 2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Mental Healthcare Act 2017, Non-discrimination in employment, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 with Section 47, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 20, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees with Mental Disabilities in Disciplinary Proceedings LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee with a mental disability constitute workplace discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Disability Rights Case Name: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. The Union of India

Mental Disability and Workplace Discrimination: Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings (17 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies time limit for land acquisition awards under the 2013 Act: Executive Engineer vs. Mahesh (10 November 2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 25, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limit for Land Acquisition Awards Under the 2013 Act: Executive Engineer vs. Mahesh Date of the Judgment: 10 November 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13093-13094 of 2018) Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. When does the clock start ticking for land acquisition

Supreme Court clarifies time limit for land acquisition awards under the 2013 Act: Executive Engineer vs. Mahesh (10 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in consumer cases after 2019 Act: Neena Aneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates (16 March 2021)

/ Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act with Section 107, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Consumer Cases After 2019 Act: Neena Aneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue is whether consumer complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, should be adjudicated under the old law or the new law, particularly concerning

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in consumer cases after 2019 Act: Neena Aneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates (16 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Nominee Officer Due to Non-Conviction of Company in Food Adulteration Case (5 November 2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 401, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 with Section 97, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences by Companies, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with Section 17

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Nominee Officer Due to Non-Conviction of Company in Food Adulteration Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a nominated officer of a company can be convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 if the company itself is not convicted. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Food Adulteration). Case Name: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs.

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Nominee Officer Due to Non-Conviction of Company in Food Adulteration Case (5 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Grant-in-Aid Eligibility Post Repeal of 1994 Order: State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, M.R. Shah, Orissa Education Act, 1969, Orissa Education Act, 1969 with Section 7-C, Right to Equality, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Clarifies Grant-in-Aid Eligibility Post Repeal of 1994 Order: State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees are entitled to claim grant-in-aid under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 after its repeal in 2004. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Grant-in-Aid Case Name: State of

Supreme Court Clarifies Grant-in-Aid Eligibility Post Repeal of 1994 Order: State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227 LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to pending arbitral and court proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Confiscation of Undeclared Gold: Gunwantlal Godawat vs. Union of India (22 November 2017)

/ Defence of India Rules, 1962, Defence of India Rules, 1962 with Rule 126L(2), Defence of India Rules, 1962 with Rule 126M, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, J. Chelameswar, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the redemption fine for confiscated gold under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and the applicability of the Gold Control Act, 1968. CASE TYPE: Civil (Confiscation and Gold Control) Case Name: Gunwantlal Godawat vs. Union of India & Another Judgment Date: 22 November 2017 Can the government confiscate gold that was

Supreme Court Upholds Confiscation of Undeclared Gold: Gunwantlal Godawat vs. Union of India (22 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the effect of repeal on Exclusive Marketing Rights under the Patents Act: Glaxo Smith Kline PLC vs. Controller of Patents & Designs (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, Patents Act, 1970, Patents Act, 1970 with Section 24B(1), Patents Act, 1970 with Section 5(2)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 10, 2008 Citation: N/A (Case reference: Civil Appeal No. 5588 of 2008, arising out of SLP (C) No.21010 of 2006) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. When a law is repealed, what happens to the rights that were in the process of being decided under

Supreme Court settles the effect of repeal on Exclusive Marketing Rights under the Patents Act: Glaxo Smith Kline PLC vs. Controller of Patents & Designs (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top