B.V. Nagarathna

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Caste Certificates in Rushikesh Bharat Garud Case

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Caste Certificate Validation, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Law, Judges, M.R. Shah, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Scheduled Tribes

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Caste Certificates in Rushikesh Bharat Garud Case LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of caste certificates. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. Case Name: Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. [Judgment Date]: 10 December 2021. Introduction Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2021 Citation: Not Available Judges: M.R. Shah, […]

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Caste Certificates in Rushikesh Bharat Garud Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Criminal Proceedings in Suvarna Cooperative Bank Fraud Case (9 December 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Relating to Criminal Breach of Trust

Supreme Court Revives Criminal Case Against Accused in Cooperative Bank Fraud LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case can be quashed against one accused solely because other potential co-accused were not included in the charge sheet. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Karnataka and Anr. Judgment Date: 9 December

Supreme Court Reinstates Criminal Proceedings in Suvarna Cooperative Bank Fraud Case (9 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732 Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 732 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J. (authored by B.R. Gavai, J.) Can a death sentence be upheld

Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732 Read Post »

Supreme Court settles seniority dispute for Junior Engineers in Uttar Pradesh: Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, D.Y. Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Right to be Considered for Promotion, Seniority Rules, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court settles seniority dispute for Junior Engineers in Uttar Pradesh Date of the Judgment: 08 December 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 730 Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Vikram Nath, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a seniority list be prepared based on the date of receipt of select lists instead of merit? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court settles seniority dispute for Junior Engineers in Uttar Pradesh: Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences in NDPS Act Cases: Mohd Zahid vs State (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 427, Judges, M.R. Shah, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 21, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 31

Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences in NDPS Act Cases: Mohd Zahid vs State (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether sentences imposed in separate trials for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) should run concurrently or consecutively. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Narcotics) Case Name: Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences in NDPS Act Cases: Mohd Zahid vs State (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies powers of National Commission on pre-deposit for appeals under Consumer Protection Act: Manohar Infrastructure vs. Sanjeev Kumar (2021) INSC 714 (7 December 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 5, Consumer Disputes, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 51, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Deposit Requirements for Appeals under Consumer Protection Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can order a deposit exceeding 50% of the decretal amount while granting a stay in appeals under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited

Supreme Court clarifies powers of National Commission on pre-deposit for appeals under Consumer Protection Act: Manohar Infrastructure vs. Sanjeev Kumar (2021) INSC 714 (7 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Pre-Existing Condition” in Overseas Mediclaim Policy: Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insurance Law, Judges, Mediclaim Policy, Overseas Mediclaim Policy, Pre-Existing Condition, Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Supreme Court Clarifies “Pre-Existing Condition” in Overseas Mediclaim Policy: Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “pre-existing condition” in insurance contracts. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr Judgment Date: 6th December 2021 Date of the Judgment: 6th December 2021

Supreme Court Clarifies “Pre-Existing Condition” in Overseas Mediclaim Policy: Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of Bangalore Development Authority in property disputes: Bangalore Development Authority vs. N. Nanjappa and another (2021) INSC 727 (06 December 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 17, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 19, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI Rule 101, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI Rule 97, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 16(2), M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Bangalore Development Authority in Property Disputes Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 727 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a development authority’s claim to land acquired decades ago be ignored in a property dispute between private parties? The Supreme Court addressed this critical

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of Bangalore Development Authority in property disputes: Bangalore Development Authority vs. N. Nanjappa and another (2021) INSC 727 (06 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Restrictions on Merchanting Trade of Banned Goods: Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with Section 10(4), Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with Section 11(1), Foreign Trade Policy, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Regulatory Law, Reserve Bank of India, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Restrictions on Merchanting Trade of Banned Goods: Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) can restrict merchanting trade transactions (MTT) for goods whose import or export is banned under India’s Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Regulatory Law,

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Restrictions on Merchanting Trade of Banned Goods: Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act in tax appeals: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Telecom (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order XLVII Rule 1, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 254(2), Income Tax Appeals, Judges, M.R. Shah, Taxation

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 254(2) of Income Tax Act in Reliance Telecom Case (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of power of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to rectify its order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Appeal Case Name: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai vs. M/s Reliance

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act in tax appeals: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Telecom (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in works contract arbitration: M.P. Housing Board vs. K.P. Dwivedi (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M. R. Shah, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, Works Contract

Supreme Court Settles Jurisdiction in Works Contract Arbitration: M.P. Housing Board vs. K.P. Dwivedi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a fresh arbitration reference is maintainable before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal when an earlier arbitration award by a court-appointed arbitrator for the same dispute exists. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Works Contract Case Name: M.P. Housing and

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in works contract arbitration: M.P. Housing Board vs. K.P. Dwivedi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Tender Dispute: Pooja Ceratech vs. ONGC (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Act, Contract Act with Section 74, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Tender Dispute: Pooja Ceratech vs. ONGC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a security deposit can be forfeited when a bidder attempts to modify their bid after the tender submission deadline. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tender Process Case Name: Pooja Ceratech Private Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Tender Dispute: Pooja Ceratech vs. ONGC (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top