B.V. Nagarathna

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 »

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 »

Scroll to Top