A.M. Khanwilkar Archives

Supreme Court Upholds Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Contract Disputes: LMJ International Ltd. vs. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. (20 February 2019)

February 20, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, GAFTA 125, GAFTA 48, Judges, Res Judicata

Supreme Court Upholds Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in LMJ International Ltd. vs. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Enforceability of foreign arbitral awards. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: LMJ International Ltd. vs. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. Judgment Date: 20 February 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 147 […]

Supreme Court Upholds Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Contract Disputes: LMJ International Ltd. vs. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. (20 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits appellants in murder case due to lack of common intention: Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

February 15, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court acquits appellants in murder case due to lack of common intention: Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain

Supreme Court acquits appellants in murder case due to lack of common intention: Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Sole Eye Witness Testimony: Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) INSC 109 (15 February 2019)

February 15, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Criminal Law, Eyewitness Testimony, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Judges, Murder, Police Testimony

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Sole Eye Witness Testimony LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, when other co-accused mentioned by the same witness have been acquitted. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Kripal

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Sole Eye Witness Testimony: Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) INSC 109 (15 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (2019)

February 14, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 279, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 337, Judges, Motor Vehicle Accident, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 166, Negligence

Supreme Court Reinstates Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The primary legal issue was whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s finding of negligence against the bus driver, and whether the claimants were entitled to compensation

Supreme Court Reinstates Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Sukhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019)

February 12, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Sukhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019) Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 123 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and K.M. Joseph, J. Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Sukhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs Election Commission to Reconsider Symbol Allocation for TTV Dhinakaran Group in ongoing political dispute (7 February 2019)

February 7, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 324, Election Law, Election Law with Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Election Symbols, Judges

Supreme Court Directs Election Commission to Reconsider Symbol Allocation for TTV Dhinakaran Group Date of the Judgment: 7 February 2019 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a political faction that is currently in dispute over the legitimate use of a party’s name and symbol be granted an interim common symbol for elections?

Supreme Court directs Election Commission to Reconsider Symbol Allocation for TTV Dhinakaran Group in ongoing political dispute (7 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Despite Co-accused Acquittal: Pappi @ Mehboob vs. State of Rajasthan (2019)

February 5, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 324/149, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Despite Co-accused Acquittal LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons can be a ground to acquit the main accused when there is direct evidence against him. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Pappi @ Mehboob vs. State of Rajasthan Judgment Date: February 5, 2019 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Despite Co-accused Acquittal: Pappi @ Mehboob vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits three in murder case, upholds conviction of one: Bikash Bora & Ors. vs. State of Assam (5 February 2019)

February 5, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court acquits three in murder case, upholds conviction of one: Bikash Bora & Ors. vs. State of Assam (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict all the accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Bikash Bora &

Supreme Court acquits three in murder case, upholds conviction of one: Bikash Bora & Ors. vs. State of Assam (5 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plans under IBC: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019)

February 5, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30(4), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plans under IBC: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) requires approval by at least 75% of the voting share of financial creditors. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian

Supreme Court Upholds 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plans under IBC: K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies re-employment of retrenched workers in U.P. Jal Nigam: Badri Vishal Pandey vs. Rajesh Mittal (2019)

January 4, 2019 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Daily Wage Workers, Hemant Gupta, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 6N, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 6Q, Judges, Reinstatement, Retrenchment, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies re-employment of retrenched workers in U.P. Jal Nigam: Badri Vishal Pandey vs. Rajesh Mittal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retrenched daily wage workers have a right to automatic reinstatement based on a previous court order. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court/Service Law Case Name: Badri Vishal Pandey & Ors. vs. Rajesh Mittal & Ors.

Supreme Court clarifies re-employment of retrenched workers in U.P. Jal Nigam: Badri Vishal Pandey vs. Rajesh Mittal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Textile Nationalisation Act: Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2018)

November 28, 2018 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Judges, Leases, Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 with Section 3, Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 with Section 39, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 105

Supreme Court Revisits Textile Nationalisation Act: Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether leasehold rights of textile undertakings continue to vest with the Central Government after nationalization, and the impact of the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 on prior court orders. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Nationalisation, Property

Supreme Court Revisits Textile Nationalisation Act: Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Vesting of Leasehold Rights in Textile Undertakings: Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors (28 November 2018)

November 28, 2018 / A.M. Khanwilkar, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 with Section 3, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 116

Supreme Court Clarifies Vesting of Leasehold Rights in Textile Undertakings Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 1048 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Can a review petition be filed by a third party? The Supreme Court addressed this question while also considering the impact of a subsequent amendment to the

Supreme Court Clarifies Vesting of Leasehold Rights in Textile Undertakings: Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors (28 November 2018) Read Post »