Ajay Rastogi

Supreme Court clarifies the timing of filing a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code: Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. (19 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order VI Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3(2)(b)(ii), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Order VIII, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Supreme Court Clarifies Counterclaim Filing Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 regarding the timing of filing a counterclaim. CASE TYPE: Civil Procedure Case Name: Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. Judgment Date: 19 November 2019 Introduction Date […]

Supreme Court clarifies the timing of filing a counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code: Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & Ors. (19 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for IAS: Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment to Civil Services, Indian Administrative Service, Judges, Judicial Review, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for IAS: Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of judicial review in the selection process for non-State Civil Service officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). CASE TYPE: Service Law, Appointment to Civil Services. Case Name: Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy & Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Selection Process for IAS: Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Commercial Purpose, Consumer Definition, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of ‘commercial purpose’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically whether a medical trust providing hostel facilities to its nurses qualifies as a

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies hotel liability for valet parking theft in consumer cases: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bailment, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Consumer Law, Deficiency in Service, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 151, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Clarifies Hotel Liability for Valet Parking Theft: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the extent of liability of hotels for theft of vehicles under valet parking. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 November 2019

Supreme Court clarifies hotel liability for valet parking theft in consumer cases: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Councillor Murder Case: Rajender vs. State (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Circumstantial Evidence, Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Murder

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Councillor Murder Case: Rajender vs. State (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Judgment Date: 24 October 2019 Date of the Judgment: 24

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Councillor Murder Case: Rajender vs. State (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Joint Trial in Property Dispute: Dhillon vs. Ghuman (24 October 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 17, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 with Section 185, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 with Section 158

Supreme Court Orders Joint Trial in Property Dispute: Dhillon vs. Ghuman (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether suits related to the same property filed in different courts by siblings, both legal heirs, should be clubbed together for a joint trial. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Partition) Case Name: Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon vs. Harinder Singh Ghuman Judgment

Supreme Court Orders Joint Trial in Property Dispute: Dhillon vs. Ghuman (24 October 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Sentence for Assault and Trespass: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and Others (22 October 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Assault, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 452, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Sentencing, Trespass

Supreme Court Enhances Sentence for Assault and Trespass: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and Others (2019) Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2019 The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was correct in reducing the sentence of the accused in a case involving assault and

Supreme Court Enhances Sentence for Assault and Trespass: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and Others (22 October 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Claim for Delhi Transport Corporation Employee Due to Insufficient Qualifying Service: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (22 October 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 with Rule 21, Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 with Rule 3(1)(q), Delhi Transport Corporation, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Pension, Qualifying Service, Service Law

Supreme Court Denies Pension Claim for Delhi Transport Corporation Employee Due to Insufficient Qualifying Service Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2019 Citation: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., Civil Appeal No(s). 12743 of 2017 Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. Can an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)

Supreme Court Denies Pension Claim for Delhi Transport Corporation Employee Due to Insufficient Qualifying Service: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (22 October 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Procedure, Consent Decree, Impounding of Documents, Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with Section 35, Interim Orders, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Specific Performance, Stamp Duty

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019) Date of the Judgment: October 22, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1170 Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a court order the impounding of a document for insufficient stamp duty even after a decree based

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revives Winding Up Proceedings and Denies Sale Deed: IDBI Bank vs. Official Liquidator (2019)

/ Advertising Winding Up Petitions, Ajay Rastogi, Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 with Rule 101, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 293(1), Companies Act, 1956 with Section 531, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Winding Up

Supreme Court Revives Winding Up Proceedings and Denies Sale Deed: IDBI Bank vs. Official Liquidator (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether winding up proceedings should be revived and whether a sale deed can be executed based on an agreement to sell. CASE TYPE: Company Law, Insolvency Case Name: IDBI Bank Limited vs. The Official Liquidator, Office of

Supreme Court Revives Winding Up Proceedings and Denies Sale Deed: IDBI Bank vs. Official Liquidator (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Property Law, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 with Section 14, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 with Section 7

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases of property damage. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Damage Case Name: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam and

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Company’s Right to Recover Property from Ex-Director: Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 630, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 482, Inherent Powers of High Court, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 41, Wrongful Withholding of Property

Supreme Court Upholds Company’s Right to Recover Property from Ex-Director: Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a company can recover property from a former director under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, even if a civil suit regarding the same property is pending. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case

Supreme Court Upholds Company’s Right to Recover Property from Ex-Director: Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top