B.V. Nagarathna

Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (29 November 2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with Section 2, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether certain areas in Delhi, including roadside plantations and areas along the Ridge, qualify as “forest land” requiring prior approval for non-forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. CASE TYPE: Environmental […]

Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (29 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Bailable Warrants Against Director in Consumer Dispute: L&T Finance Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Rana (25 November 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Bailable Warrants, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Consumer Law, Judges, M.R. Shah, Order 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Quashes Bailable Warrants Against Director in Consumer Dispute: L&T Finance Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Rana (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a National Commission can issue bailable warrants against a director of a company when the company is already represented by counsel and authorized representatives. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case Name: L & T Finance

Supreme Court Quashes Bailable Warrants Against Director in Consumer Dispute: L&T Finance Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Rana (25 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Recovery Order Against Employee in Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Case (23 November 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Disciplinary Authority, Disciplinary Proceedings, Enquiry Officer, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Principles of Natural Justice, Recovery of Losses, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Recovery of Loss in Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Case Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6947 of 2021 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a disciplinary authority impose a punishment based on charges not proven by the Enquiry Officer? The Supreme Court recently

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Recovery Order Against Employee in Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Case (23 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Deputy Collector Appointment: State of UP vs. Chunni Lal (2021)

/ Appointment to Public Service, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, M.R. Shah, Service Law

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Deputy Collector Appointment: State of UP vs. Chunni Lal (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can direct the State to appoint two individuals to a single post. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of U.P. vs. Chunni Lal & Ors. Judgment Date: 23 November 2021 Introduction

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Deputy Collector Appointment: State of UP vs. Chunni Lal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Promotion Rules: State of UP vs. Vikash Kumar Singh (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Promotion Rules, Relaxation in Service, Service Law, Uttar Pradesh Service Rules, Uttar Pradesh Service Rules with Rule 4, Uttar Pradesh Service Rules with Rule 5(iii), Writ of Mandamus

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Promotion Rules: State of UP vs. Vikash Kumar Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion when the rules specify a minimum service period and the relaxation is discretionary. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Promotion Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Promotion Rules: State of UP vs. Vikash Kumar Singh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 with Section 94

Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of juvenility in cases involving heinous crimes. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Juvenile Justice Case Name: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: 18 November 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021)

/ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 16(2), General Conditions of Contract, Interest in Arbitration, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite and future interest when the contract between the parties expressly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises [Judgment Date]: 18 November

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction Order in Property Dispute: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 39, Interim Injunction, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Property Dispute

Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction Order in Property Dispute: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an interim injunction can be granted against third parties claiming rights in a property without impleading them in the suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha &

Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction Order in Property Dispute: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Conspiracy Charges in Land Dispute Case: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs. State of Gujarat (2021) INSC 708 (12 November 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 385, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 465, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Conspiracy Charges in Land Dispute Case Date of the Judgment: 12 November 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 708 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a High Court quash a criminal case based on a draft charge sheet that has not been submitted to the Magistrate? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Conspiracy Charges in Land Dispute Case: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs. State of Gujarat (2021) INSC 708 (12 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit (2021)

/ Advocates, B.V. Nagarathna, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Deficiency in Service, Judges, M.R. Shah, Professional Responsibility

Supreme Court Dismisses Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether advocates can be held liable for deficiency in service if their client loses a case on merits. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit and others [Judgment Date]: November 8,

Supreme Court Dismisses Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Professor Illegally Terminated: Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Reinstatement, Service Law, Termination of Service, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, University Grants Commission Act, 1956 with Section 12(b), Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Reinstates Professor Illegally Terminated: Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University (2021) Date of the Judgment: 29th October, 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 750 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J., Vikram Nath J., B.V. Nagarathna J. Can a university terminate a professor’s services merely because the funding plan under which they were

Supreme Court Reinstates Professor Illegally Terminated: Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules on using evidence from separate trials: A.T. Mydeen & Ors. vs. Customs Department (29 October 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 273, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 299, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 132, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 135(1)(a)(ii), Customs Act, 1962 with Section 135A, D.Y. Chandrachud, Fair Trial, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 33, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court on Evidence in Separate Trials: A.T. Mydeen vs. Customs Department (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Can evidence from one criminal trial be used in another separate trial, even if both trials involve the same offense and similar facts? CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Customs Act Case Name: A.T. Mydeen and Another vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs

Supreme Court clarifies rules on using evidence from separate trials: A.T. Mydeen & Ors. vs. Customs Department (29 October 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top