A.S. Bopanna

Supreme Court Restores Restrictions on Biosimilar Drug Marketing: Genentech Inc. vs. Drug Controller General of India (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Drug Approval, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Rule 96, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Restores Restrictions on Biosimilar Drug Marketing: Genentech Inc. vs. Drug Controller General of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a biosimilar drug manufacturer can market their product with the same name as the original drug, despite not conducting all required tests and trials. CASE TYPE: Pharmaceutical Law, Intellectual Property Case Name: M/s Genentech Inc. […]

Supreme Court Restores Restrictions on Biosimilar Drug Marketing: Genentech Inc. vs. Drug Controller General of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the date for calculation of Premium FSI Charges in building plan approvals: Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vs. D. Rajan Dev (2019) INSC 1128 (11 December 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Regulations, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Regulations with Regulation 36, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Premium FSI, R. Banumathi

Premium FSI Charges: Supreme Court Decides on Applicable Date for Calculation Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1128 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a builder be charged Premium FSI rates based on the date of application or the date of approval? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court settles the date for calculation of Premium FSI Charges in building plan approvals: Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vs. D. Rajan Dev (2019) INSC 1128 (11 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee (2019) – Employee Conduct

/ A.S. Bopanna, Employee Conduct, Fundamental Rules, Fundamental Rules with Rule 56, Fundamental Rules with Rule 67, Fundamental Rules with Rule 68, Judges, R. Banumathi, Retiral Benefits, Service Law, Voluntary Retirement

Supreme Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee (2019) – Employee Conduct LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who joins another service without proper approval and without getting her leave sanctioned is entitled to retiral benefits from her previous employer. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh &

Supreme Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee (2019) – Employee Conduct Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies qualifying service for invalid pension under Orissa Civil Services Rules: State of Odisha vs. Manju Naik (2019) INSC 1107 (04 December 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, Pension Law, Pension Law with Rule 39, Pension Law with Rule 47, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies qualifying service for invalid pension under Orissa Civil Services Rules Date of the Judgment: 04 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1107 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a government employee receive invalid pension even if they haven’t completed the minimum qualifying service? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court clarifies qualifying service for invalid pension under Orissa Civil Services Rules: State of Odisha vs. Manju Naik (2019) INSC 1107 (04 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 439, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 3, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 4, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted in a case of economic offense where the triple test (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses) is satisfied in favor of the accused, but the gravity of the offense is argued to

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award in Land Development Dispute: Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri vs. Unitop Apartments (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 19, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award in Land Development Dispute: Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri vs. Unitop Apartments (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be set aside for procedural lapses when parties agreed to the procedure. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. M/s Unitop Apartments & Builders Ltd.

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award in Land Development Dispute: Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri vs. Unitop Apartments (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles land dispute in mortgage case: Digamber vs. Kachru (2 December 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 with Section 103, Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 with Section 5, Judges, Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939, Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939 with Section 10, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Settles Land Dispute in Mortgage Case: Digamber vs. Kachru (2019) Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1234 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can a long-standing land dispute be resolved through amicable settlement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a

Supreme Court settles land dispute in mortgage case: Digamber vs. Kachru (2 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 2010 Rules for Ongoing Recruitment: APSC vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma (28 November 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019, Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 320, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds 2010 Rules for Ongoing Recruitment: APSC vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether new recruitment rules apply to ongoing selection processes. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Assam Public Service Commission & Ors. vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Ors. Judgment Date: 28 November 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 28

Supreme Court Upholds 2010 Rules for Ongoing Recruitment: APSC vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma (28 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Jai Prakash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 996

/ A.S. Bopanna, Criminal Investigation, Criminal Procedure Code, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Jai Prakash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 996 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the conviction of the accused in a murder case, based on inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lapses in the investigation. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Jai Prakash vs.

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Jai Prakash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 996 Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Admissibility of Evidence, Evidence Law, Evidence Law with Section 65-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 217, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 221, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a police officer can be held liable for failing to prevent a crime and apprehend criminals when they were part of a larger police force at the scene of the crime. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: V.

Supreme Court Acquits Police Officer in Dinakaran Office Arson Case: V. Rajaram vs. State (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 96(2), Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is maintainable after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree After Dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 Application: N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu (21 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overrules N.R. Parmar on Seniority: Direct Recruits vs. Promotees in Manipur Police Service (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 with Rule 28(i), Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 with Rule 28(iii), R. Banumathi, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with N.R. Parmar Case

Supreme Court Overrules N.R. Parmar on Seniority: Direct Recruits vs. Promotees in Manipur Police Service (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Manipur Police Service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. Judgment Date: 19 November 2019 Date of

Supreme Court Overrules N.R. Parmar on Seniority: Direct Recruits vs. Promotees in Manipur Police Service (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top