A.S. Bopanna Archives

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019)

November 15, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, All India Services Act, 1951, All India Services Act, 1951 with Section 3, Hrishikesh Roy, IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Judges, Promotions, R. Banumathi, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the Selection Committee’s assessment of candidates for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). CASE TYPE: Service Law – Promotion to IAS Case Name: Union Public Service […]

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC Selection Process for IAS Promotions: Union Public Service Commission vs. Jawahar Santhkumar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment in Railway Contracts: Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (2019)

November 14, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Appointment of Arbitrators, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration Law, Breach of contract, Contract Law, General Conditions of Contract, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment in Railway Contracts: Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the correct procedure for appointing arbitrators in disputes arising from railway contracts, especially when the contract specifies the appointment of railway officers as arbitrators. CASE TYPE: This case falls under

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment in Railway Contracts: Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019)

November 8, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 37, Construction Contracts, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 2, Contract Law with Clause 25, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the levy of pre-estimated liquidated damages by a Superintending Engineer, as per a contract clause, is an arbitrable matter or an “excepted matter.” CASE TYPE: Contract/Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) COMPANY vs. OIL

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Contract Dispute: Vijay Trading vs. Central Warehousing (2019)

November 7, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 5(g), Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Contract Dispute: Vijay Trading vs. Central Warehousing (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the forfeiture of a security deposit and detention of equipment by the Central Warehousing Corporation was justified due to a contractor’s failure to perform contractual obligations. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/s Vijay Trading and Transport

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Contract Dispute: Vijay Trading vs. Central Warehousing (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Salary for Unauthorized Teacher Appointment: Ravindra Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools (2019)

November 6, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Ad Hoc Appointments, Appointment of Teachers, Education Law, Education Law with First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi, Service Law, Service Law with Payment of Salaries Act, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Salary for Unauthorized Teacher Appointment: Ravindra Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher appointed by the management of an educational institution without following the prescribed procedure is entitled to receive a salary from the state government. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Service Law Case Name: Ravindra

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Salary for Unauthorized Teacher Appointment: Ravindra Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fresh consideration of additional lease premium: CIDCO vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. (2019)

November 6, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Additional Lease Premium, Bonafide Purchaser, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Lease Agreement, New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975, Property Law, R. Banumathi, Regulation 6, New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975, Regulation 7, New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975

Supreme Court directs fresh consideration of additional lease premium: CIDCO vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. (2019) Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1314 Judges: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. Can a statutory body demand additional lease premium without proper procedure and consideration of factual details? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court directs fresh consideration of additional lease premium: CIDCO vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for Special Education Teachers in Delhi: Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar (2019)

October 24, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), Eligibility Criteria, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment Rules, Relaxation in Qualifying Marks, Reservation Policy, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for Special Education Teachers in Delhi: Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether candidates who obtained the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification with relaxed pass marks for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category from states other than Delhi, can be considered for employment as Special Education

Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for Special Education Teachers in Delhi: Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019)

October 23, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitrator Jurisdiction, Contract Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Implied Terms, Judges, R. Banumathi, Scope of Arbitration Agreement

Supreme Court Allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to consider a counterclaim relating to CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit in an arbitration proceeding. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Go Airlines (India) Limited [Judgment

Supreme Court allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail in INX Media Case: P. Chidambaram vs. CBI (2019)

October 22, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 438, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 468, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 8, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Grants Bail in INX Media Case: P. Chidambaram vs. CBI (2019) Date of the Judgment: October 22, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1103 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a court deny bail based on a mere apprehension that a person might influence witnesses, even when there’s no concrete

Supreme Court Grants Bail in INX Media Case: P. Chidambaram vs. CBI (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Contract Labour Prohibition in ONGC: ONGC Labour Union vs. ONGC Dehradun (2019)

October 17, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with Section 10, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Prohibition of Contract Labour, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Contract Labour Prohibition in ONGC: ONGC Labour Union vs. ONGC Dehradun (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prohibition of contract labor in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) establishments was validly issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Contract Labour Prohibition in ONGC: ONGC Labour Union vs. ONGC Dehradun (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “commercial dispute” under Commercial Courts Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2019)

October 4, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order VII Rule 10, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 2(1)(c)(vii), Commercial Dispute, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies “commercial dispute” under Commercial Courts Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “commercial dispute” concerning immovable property under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. CASE TYPE: Civil, Commercial Dispute Case Name: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 4 October 2019

Supreme Court clarifies “commercial dispute” under Commercial Courts Act: Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for allotment and development charges in Okhla Enclave Plot Dispute: Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association vs. Union of India and Others (2019)

October 3, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration, Arbitration Process, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 with Section 3, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 with Section 5, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 with Section 8(4), Judges, R. Banumathi, Special Committee, Vikramajit Sen

Supreme Court Clarifies Allotment and Development Charges in Okhla Enclave Dispute (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the process of allotment of plots, payment of development charges, and the role of the colonizer in a long-standing real estate dispute. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Land Allotment Dispute Case Name: Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association vs. Union of

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for allotment and development charges in Okhla Enclave Plot Dispute: Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association vs. Union of India and Others (2019) Read Post »