A. S. Bopanna

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order for adding a party in Admiralty Suit: Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy vs. Banque Cantonale De Geneve (23 September 2022)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, Admiralty Law, Admiralty Law with Section 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 10(2), Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Law, Commercial Law with Section 13, Indira Banerjee, Judges

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order for adding a party in Admiralty Suit: Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy vs. Banque Cantonale De Geneve (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an order for adding a party in an admiralty suit is appealable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and […]

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order for adding a party in Admiralty Suit: Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy vs. Banque Cantonale De Geneve (23 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Right to Withhold Confidential Documents in Inquiry: Kavi Arora vs. SEBI (2022)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Natural Justice, Regulatory Adjudication, Right to be Heard, SEBI Act, 1992, Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956, Securities Law

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Right to Withhold Confidential Documents in Inquiry: Kavi Arora vs. SEBI (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is obligated to disclose all documents relied upon in a show cause notice, including those considered confidential, to the noticee during an inquiry. CASE TYPE: Securities Law, Regulatory

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Right to Withhold Confidential Documents in Inquiry: Kavi Arora vs. SEBI (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Expands Dowry Definition in Dowry Death Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr. (2022) INSC 30

/ A. S. Bopanna, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with Section 2, Hima Kohli, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Expands Dowry Definition in Dowry Death Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr. (2022) INSC 30 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the demand for money to construct a house constitutes a dowry demand under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Dowry Death) Case Name: State of Madhya

Supreme Court Expands Dowry Definition in Dowry Death Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr. (2022) INSC 30 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Security Cheque Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 202, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 141, Procedure for Summons

Supreme Court Clarifies Security Cheque Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cheque issued as security is covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Negotiable Instruments Act Case Name: Sunil Todi & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat &

Supreme Court Clarifies Security Cheque Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail for Absconding Accused in Cheating Case: Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar (21 October 2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 83, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M. R. Shah, Offences Relating to Property

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail for Absconding Accused in Cheating Case Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2021 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and A. S. Bopanna, J. Can a person who is declared an absconder be granted anticipatory bail? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail for Absconding Accused in Cheating Case: Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar (21 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 263, Judges, Limitation Period, M. R. Shah, Revision of Assessment Order

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 263 Income Tax Revisions: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the limitation period for revision orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mohammed Meeran

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Delay and Laches, Judges, M. R. Shah, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with Section 91(3), Service Law, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition challenging a termination order should be entertained after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Surji Devi [Judgment Date]: October 7, 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “suitable post” for compassionate appointment: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Premlata (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dying-in-Harness Rules, Government Employee, Judges, M. R. Shah, Public Employment, Service Law, Uttar Pradesh Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, Uttar Pradesh Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 with Rule 5

Supreme Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment Rules: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Premlata (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “suitable post” in compassionate appointment rules. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Premlata [Judgment Date]: October 5, 2021 Date of the Judgment: October 5, 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6003

Supreme Court clarifies “suitable post” for compassionate appointment: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Premlata (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Sections 65 to 81, Conciliation, Judges, M. R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 15, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 18, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Procedure for dispute resolution under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/s Vijeta Construction vs. M/s Indus Smelters Ltd. & Anr. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedures for Section 138 NI Act cases to expedite trials (16 April 2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, B. R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 219, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 258, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 143, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 145, S. A. Bobde, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedures for Section 138 NI Act Cases to Expedite Trials LEGAL ISSUE: Streamlining procedures for trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. Judgment Date: 16

Supreme Court clarifies procedures for Section 138 NI Act cases to expedite trials (16 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (26 March 2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 128, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 129, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 182, Constitutional Law, Electoral Bond Scheme, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 29C, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 31, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 should be stayed. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law Case Name: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 26 March 2021 Date

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (26 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies pre-deposit requirements under RDBA Act: Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Ambuj A. Kasliwal (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Judges, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 21, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies pre-deposit requirements under RDBA Act: Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Ambuj A. Kasliwal (2021) Date of the Judgment: February 16, 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 78 Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI, A. S. Bopanna, J, V. Ramasubramanian, J. The judgment was authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna. Can an appellate tribunal completely waive the mandatory

Supreme Court clarifies pre-deposit requirements under RDBA Act: Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Ambuj A. Kasliwal (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top