Arun Mishra

Supreme Court Restores Khata: Lakshmamma vs. Bangalore Development Authority (2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Bangalore Development Authority Act, Bangalore Development Authority Act with order dated 17.09.2003, Co-operative Societies Act, Co-operative Societies Act with Registrar's order dated 02.01.1997, Judges, Khata Restoration, Membership Rights, Navin Sinha

Supreme Court Restores Khata: Lakshmamma vs. Bangalore Development Authority (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a “khata” (property registration document) can be denied to a purchaser of land from a Scheduled Caste Co-operative Society, if the purchaser does not belong to the Scheduled Caste, despite prior orders protecting the allotment. CASE TYPE: Civil, Land Law Case Name: […]

Supreme Court Restores Khata: Lakshmamma vs. Bangalore Development Authority (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies timeline for balance payment in property auction under SARFAESI Act: Rakesh Birani vs Prem Narain Sehgal (21 March 2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Enforcement of Security Interest, Judges, SARFAESI Act with Rule 9, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 with Rule 9(2), Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 with Rule 9(4), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Timeline for Balance Payment in Property Auction under SARFAESI Act LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the commencement date for the 15-day period to deposit the remaining 75% of the auction amount in a property sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. CASE TYPE: Securitisation and

Supreme Court clarifies timeline for balance payment in property auction under SARFAESI Act: Rakesh Birani vs Prem Narain Sehgal (21 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Retrospective Promotion Order in BSF: Union of India vs. Chaman Rana (2018)

/ Annual Confidential Report (ACR), Arun Mishra, Judges, Navin Sinha, Promotion, Retrospective Promotion, Service Law

Supreme Court Sets Aside Retrospective Promotion Order in BSF: Union of India vs. Chaman Rana (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether belated claims for retrospective promotion based on non-communication of ‘good’ ACR entries are maintainable. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Others vs. Chaman Rana Judgment Date: 12 March 2018 Date of the

Supreme Court Sets Aside Retrospective Promotion Order in BSF: Union of India vs. Chaman Rana (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development: Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors (2018)

/ Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, 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

Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors: Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development Date of the Judgment: February 21, 2018 Citation: Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors, Civil Appeal No(s).2362 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27383 of 2015) Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Amitava Roy, J. Can the government

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development: Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Judicial Service Exam Criteria: Taniya Malik vs. High Court of Delhi (2018)

/ Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Judges, Judicial Appointments, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Judicial Service Exam Criteria: Taniya Malik vs. High Court of Delhi (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court’s criteria for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, including minimum cut-off marks and the absence of re-evaluation, were valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Judicial Appointments) Case Name: Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Judicial Service Exam Criteria: Taniya Malik vs. High Court of Delhi (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 »

Supreme Court Remands Land Compensation Case for Re-evaluation of Fruit Tree Valuation: State of Punjab vs. Thuru Ram (2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Compensation, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Remands Land Compensation Case: State of Punjab vs. Thuru Ram (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Valuation of fruit trees on acquired land. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Thuru Ram. [Judgment Date]: January 19, 2018 Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2018. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Arun Mishra, J.

Supreme Court Remands Land Compensation Case for Re-evaluation of Fruit Tree Valuation: State of Punjab vs. Thuru Ram (2018) Read Post »

Caste Certificate Validity After Inter-Caste Marriage: Supreme Court Decision in Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Compulsory Retirement, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Rules on Caste Certificates After Inter-Caste Marriage: Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 17 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can a person’s caste be changed after marrying someone from a different caste? The Supreme Court addressed this

Caste Certificate Validity After Inter-Caste Marriage: Supreme Court Decision in Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Election Petition: Tripurari Sharan vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav (2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Election Law, Election Petition, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Election Petition: Tripurari Sharan vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the validity of an election petition and the High Court’s decision on it. CASE TYPE: Election Law Case Name: Tripurari Sharan & Anr. vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav & Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Election Petition: Tripurari Sharan vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12

/ Arun Mishra, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXII, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 with Section 4, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Suits by or Against Minors

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an elder brother can act as the ‘next friend’ of his minor brother in a property dispute case, when their father, the natural guardian, has conflicting interests. CASE TYPE: Civil Property

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12 Read Post »

Land Acquisition Lapse under the 2013 Act: Supreme Court Refers Issue to Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 12, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 34, 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

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if compensation is not deposited in court but with the Land Acquisition Collector. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Land Acquisition Lapse under the 2013 Act: Supreme Court Refers Issue to Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Finality to Land Acquisition: H.N. Jagannath vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Bangalore Development Authority Act, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 9, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 16(2), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a civil court can decide on the validity of land acquisition notifications and proceedings. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: H. N. Jagannath & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Judgment Date: 06 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 1049 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Mohan

Supreme Court Restores Finality to Land Acquisition: H.N. Jagannath vs. State of Karnataka (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top