B.V. Nagarathna

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act: Phoenix ARC Prevails Over Borrowers in Loan Recovery Dispute (12 January 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M.R. Shah, SARFAESI Act, 2002, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 17, Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act: Phoenix ARC Prevails Over Borrowers in Loan Recovery Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Maintainability of writ petitions against private Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) in matters related to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act. CASE TYPE: Securitisation and Asset Reconstruction Law Case Name: Phoenix ARC […]

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act: Phoenix ARC Prevails Over Borrowers in Loan Recovery Dispute (12 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act: Phoenix ARC Wins Against Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (12 January 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Enforcement of Security Interest, Judges, M.R. Shah, SARFAESI Act, SARFAESI Act with Section 13, SARFAESI Act with Section 17

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act: Phoenix ARC Wins Against Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) regarding actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act: Phoenix ARC Wins Against Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (12 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism vs. Kandhari Beverages (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism vs. Kandhari Beverages (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Haryana Tourism Limited vs. M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited. Judgment Date: January 11, 2022 Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022. Citation: (2022)

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism vs. Kandhari Beverages (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism Ltd. vs. Kandhari Beverages Ltd. (2022)

/ Appellate Review, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism Ltd. vs. Kandhari Beverages Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The scope of appellate review under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Haryana Tourism Limited vs. M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited [Judgment Date]: January 11, 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism Ltd. vs. Kandhari Beverages Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism Wins Against Kandhari Beverages in Contract Dispute (January 11, 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award in Haryana Tourism vs. Kandhari Beverages Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Haryana Tourism Limited vs. M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited. Judgment Date: January 11, 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022.

Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator’s Award: Haryana Tourism Wins Against Kandhari Beverages in Contract Dispute (January 11, 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Murder Case: Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Murder Case: Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court’s grant of bail was justified in a case of murder, considering the gravity of the offense and the manner in which it was committed. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Murder Case: Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Mother-in-Law for Cruelty: Meera vs. State (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Women

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Mother-in-Law for Cruelty: Meera vs. State (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 33 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a mother-in-law be held liable for cruelty towards her daughter-in-law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, upholding the conviction of

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Mother-in-Law for Cruelty: Meera vs. State (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022)

/ Autonomy of Societies, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Societies Registration Act, 1860, State Government Employees

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of an autonomous body are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with State Government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10 January 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022)

/ Autonomous Bodies, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Parity in Service, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Societies Registration Act, 1860

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of an autonomous body are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with state government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10 January 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Service Law with Maharashtra Civil Services Rules

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of an autonomous body are entitled to pensionary benefits on par with State Government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. Judgment Date: 10 January 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Denies Pension Parity for WALMI Employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in bomb blast case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 with Section 3, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 with Section 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court overturns conviction in bomb blast case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction and acquitting the accused in a case involving bomb blasts. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Rajesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court overturns conviction in bomb blast case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court acquittal in double murder case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 with Section 3, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 with Section 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court overturns High Court acquittal in double murder case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction and acquitting the accused in a double murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Rajesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.

Supreme Court overturns High Court acquittal in double murder case: Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top