Adarsh Kumar Goel

Supreme Court clarifies the powers of High Courts in Prevention of Corruption Act cases: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (28 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Basic Structure of the Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 226, Constitution of India with Article 227, Interlocutory Orders, Judges, Navin Sinha, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 19, R.F. Nariman, Stay of Proceedings

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of High Courts in Corruption Cases: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. CBI (2018) Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2018 Citation: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) INSC 220 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Navin Sinha, J., R.F. Nariman, J. (Concurring) […]

Supreme Court clarifies the powers of High Courts in Prevention of Corruption Act cases: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (28 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court addresses delays in criminal appeals: Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 167, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Addresses Delays in Criminal Appeals: Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 249 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can the justice system ensure timely resolution of criminal appeals, especially when individuals have spent a significant portion of

Supreme Court addresses delays in criminal appeals: Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Seniority of Promotee HJS Officers in Uttar Pradesh: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) INSC 247 (28 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Rota System, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 with Rule 22, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 with Rule 26

Supreme Court Upholds Seniority of Promotee HJS Officers in Uttar Pradesh Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 247 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. Can a delay in conducting suitability tests for promotions impact the seniority of judicial officers? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute

Supreme Court Upholds Seniority of Promotee HJS Officers in Uttar Pradesh: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) INSC 247 (28 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (22 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an objection to jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised earlier under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (22 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Jurisdiction in Arbitration, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a plea of jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion Engineering

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 8, Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Central Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 in cases where an arbitration agreement exists. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: The State

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in service matters (20 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 193, Judges, Offences Against Public Justice, Offences under the Atrocities Act, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(ix), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Safeguards Against Misuse of the Atrocities Act LEGAL ISSUE: Safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Service Law Case Name: Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 20 March 2018 Can a public servant

Supreme Court clarifies safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in service matters (20 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 29, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 33, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Foreign Law Firms’ Practice in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether foreign law firms and lawyers are permitted to practice law in India. CASE TYPE: Regulatory/Advocacy Case Name: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji and Ors. Judgment Date: March 13, 2018 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) Read Post »

Multinational Accounting Firms’ Operations in India: Supreme Court directs review of regulatory framework in S. Sukumar vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. (23 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Section 2(2), Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Section 25, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Section 29, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with Foreign Exchange Management (Investment in Firm or Proprietary concern in India) Regulations, 2000, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Addresses Multinational Accounting Firms’ Operations in India: S. Sukumar vs. ICAI & Ors. (2018) Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2018 Citation: S. Sukumar vs. The Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2422 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1808 of 2016) with Writ Petition

Multinational Accounting Firms’ Operations in India: Supreme Court directs review of regulatory framework in S. Sukumar vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judges, Public Interest, Public Service Commission, Recruitment, Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8, Right to Information Act, 2005, Service Law, Transparency, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing transparency and confidentiality in public examinations under the Right to Information Act, 2005. CASE TYPE: Service Law / Right to Information Case Name: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 112 (13 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Executive Decisions, Judges, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 112 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a public interest litigation (PIL) be used to settle political scores? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while dismissing petitions alleging

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 112 (13 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Meaning of “Paid” and “Tender” under Section 24 of the 2013 Act in Land Acquisition Cases (8 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 34, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapses Under Section 24 of the 2013 Act LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “paid” and “tender” in land acquisition and the effect of non-deposit of compensation in court. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 8 February 2018 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Settles Meaning of “Paid” and “Tender” under Section 24 of the 2013 Act in Land Acquisition Cases (8 February 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top