A. M. Khanwilkar

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “forest land” under Punjab Land Preservation Act and Forest Conservation Act (21 July 2022)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, C. T. Ravikumar, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with Section 2, Indian Forest Act, 1927, Indian Forest Act, 1927 with Section 26, Indian Forest Act, 1927 with Section 35, Judges, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 with Section 3, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 with Section 4, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 with Section 5

Supreme Court Clarifies Forest Land Definition Under Punjab Land Preservation Act and Forest Conservation Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land covered under a special order issued by the Government of Haryana under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) is considered “forest land” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, […]

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “forest land” under Punjab Land Preservation Act and Forest Conservation Act (21 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Malicious Prosecution in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 173(2), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Scientist in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018) Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2018 Citation: S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, 2018 INSC 785 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Can a person be compensated for the mental agony

Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Malicious Prosecution in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Tribunal Appointments Process Amidst Ongoing Litigation

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Writ Petitions, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Rules of 2017, Tribunal Appointments

Supreme Court Clarifies Tribunal Appointments Process Amidst Ongoing Litigation Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 137 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J The Supreme Court addressed the complexities surrounding the appointment of members to various tribunals in India. This order clarifies the interim directions

Supreme Court Clarifies Tribunal Appointments Process Amidst Ongoing Litigation Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 with Section 25, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Promotion, Seniority Dispute, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) was correct in determining the seniority of faculty members based on the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, or whether the grading system should have been the sole determinant.

Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses DDA Appeal, Grants Time for Fresh Land Acquisition: Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajender Singh Chauhan (2017)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Judges, Kurian Joseph, 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 11, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) appeal regarding land acquisition should be allowed. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajender Singh Chauhan & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 13th February 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13th February 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2690 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave

Supreme Court Dismisses DDA Appeal, Grants Time for Fresh Land Acquisition: Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajender Singh Chauhan (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement in Property Dispute: Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2017) INSC 754

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Amendment of Pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of the Judgment: December 15, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 754 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr D Y Chandrachud, J Can a party amend their written statement to include a new defense, even if it is years after the initial filing? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement in Property Dispute: Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2017) INSC 754 Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns contributory negligence finding in motor accident case: Dinesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd (2017)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Contributory Negligence, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with Contributory Negligence, Negligence

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claimant’s failure to produce a driving license automatically implies contributory negligence in a motor accident case. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation. Case Name: Sri Dinesh Kumar. J @ Dinesh J vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 December 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017 Citation:

Supreme Court overturns contributory negligence finding in motor accident case: Dinesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a central statute pending before a High Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court when a similar challenge is already pending before it. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Transfer Petition Case Name: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top