Supreme Court Upholds Reversionary Rights, Denies Absolute Ownership Under Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act: Ajit Kaur vs. Darshan Singh (2019) Date of the Judgment: April 4, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 325 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a woman, who is in possession of a property without a valid title, claim absolute […]
Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Bail in Terror Funding Case: National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was right in granting bail by re-appreciating the evidence in a case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Terror Financing, Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Clauses, Limits Interference: Union of India vs. Parmar Construction Company (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can appoint an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the parties have already agreed to a specific procedure for arbitrator appointment in their contract, and whether
Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Voucher in Insurance Claim Dispute: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a discharge voucher issued by an insured party, after accepting a settlement amount, bars them from later raising a dispute and invoking arbitration. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: United India
Supreme Court enhances compensation for acid attack victim: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar (2019) Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 236 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. Can the State be held liable to pay compensation to victims of acid attacks? The Supreme Court of India addressed this
Supreme Court Orders Return of Children to US in Custody Battle LEGAL ISSUE: Determining jurisdiction in international child custody disputes and the paramount consideration of the child’s best interests. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Child Custody, Habeas Corpus Case Name: Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan Kodali Judgment Date: March 15, 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: March
Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in TADA Case Due to Invalid Sanctions: State of Gujarat vs. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya (2019) Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2019 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a conviction under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) stand if the mandatory
Supreme Court clarifies refund claims under Central Excise Act for buyers: Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a buyer can claim a refund of central excise duty when the manufacturer paid it under protest, and if the limitation period applies to the buyer’s claim. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law
Supreme Court clarifies refund claims under Central Excise Act: Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of limitation period for refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the duty was paid under protest by the manufacturer and the refund is claimed by the buyer. CASE
Supreme Court clarifies refund claims under Central Excise Act: Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2019) Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 141 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a buyer claim a refund of excise duty paid by the manufacturer under protest, even if the buyer’s
Supreme Court Upholds Enforceability of Foreign Arbitral Awards in LMJ International Ltd. vs. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Enforceability of foreign arbitral awards and the scope of objections under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: LMJ International Ltd. vs. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. [Judgment
Supreme Court clarifies refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act: Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the limitation period of six months applies to refund claims filed by a buyer when the central excise duty was paid under protest by the manufacturer. CASE TYPE: Central Excise
