B.V. Nagarathna

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case: Roopwanti vs. State of Haryana (2023)

/ Acquittal, B.V. Nagarathna, Criminal Appeal, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case: Roopwanti vs. State of Haryana (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Standards for reversing acquittals in criminal appeals. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Roopwanti vs. State of Haryana. Judgment Date: 24th February 2023 Date of the Judgment: 24th February 2023. Citation: 2023 INSC 157. Judges: Hon’ble Justices Krishna Murari and […]

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case: Roopwanti vs. State of Haryana (2023) Read Post »

DNA Test for Adultery: Supreme Court Limits Use in Matrimonial Cases (20 February 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Family Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, Matrimonial Disputes, Presumption of Legitimacy, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Restricts DNA Tests for Proving Adultery in Matrimonial Disputes LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can direct a DNA test of a child to determine adultery in divorce proceedings. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial/Family Law Case Name: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia Judgment Date: 20 February 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 20 February

DNA Test for Adultery: Supreme Court Limits Use in Matrimonial Cases (20 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts DNA Tests for Proving Adultery in Matrimonial Cases: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) INSC 146 (20 February 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 14, Fundamental Rights, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, Presumption of Legitimacy, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Restricts DNA Tests for Proving Adultery in Matrimonial Cases: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) INSC 146 (20 February 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can direct a DNA test of a child to determine adultery in a divorce case, and the interplay between Section 112 and Section 114 of the

Supreme Court Restricts DNA Tests for Proving Adultery in Matrimonial Cases: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) INSC 146 (20 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles gratuity eligibility for deceased employees: State of U.P. vs. Smt. Priyanka (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Death-cum-Retirement Benefits, Gratuity, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law

Supreme Court rules on gratuity for deceased employee’s family: State of UP vs. Smt. Priyanka (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the family of a deceased employee is entitled to gratuity when the employee dies before opting for retirement at the age of 60 years. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: State of U.P. and Ors. vs.

Supreme Court settles gratuity eligibility for deceased employees: State of U.P. vs. Smt. Priyanka (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 with Paragraph 8(II)(vi), CRZ-II Areas, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Protection Act, 1986 with CRZ Notification, 2011, Environmental Law, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the term “in notified ports” under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011, concerning the permissibility of storage facilities for non-hazardous cargo. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law. Case Name: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt.

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Coastal Regulation Zone Norms: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Coastal Regulation Zone, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 57, Customs Area, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Protection Act, 1986 with 2011 Notification, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Upholds Coastal Regulation Zone Norms: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “in” versus “within” concerning storage facilities in Coastal Regulation Zones. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 1 February 2023 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Coastal Regulation Zone Norms: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case but Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) INSC 73

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case but Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) INSC 73 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred to another state due to concerns about witness intimidation and the fairness of the prosecution. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sunil Saini &

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case but Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) INSC 73 Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Constitutional Law, Fair Trial, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred to another state due to allegations of witness intimidation and an unfair prosecution. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Family Pension to Child Adopted After Government Servant’s Death: Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 46

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with Rule 54(14)(b), Family Pension, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 with Section 12, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 with Section 8, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Denies Family Pension to Child Adopted After Government Servant’s Death Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 46 Judges: K.M. Joseph J., B.V. Nagarathna J. Can a child adopted by the widow of a government servant after the government servant’s death be considered part of the “family” for the purpose

Supreme Court Denies Family Pension to Child Adopted After Government Servant’s Death: Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 46 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies family pension eligibility for adopted children of deceased government servants: Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 492 (17 January 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with Rule 54(14)(b), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 with Section 12, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 with Section 8, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court clarifies family pension eligibility for adopted children of deceased government servants Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 492 Judges: K.M. Joseph J. and B.V. Nagarathna J. Can a child adopted by the widow of a government servant after the government servant’s death be eligible for family pension? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies family pension eligibility for adopted children of deceased government servants: Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 492 (17 January 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Sikkimese” definition for Income Tax Exemption, Invalidates Gender-Based Exclusion: Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Fundamental Rights, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 10(26AAA), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court rules on Sikkimese definition for Income Tax Exemption Date of the Judgment: January 13, 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 29 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. (Separate concurring opinion by Nagarathna J.) Can the definition of “Sikkimese” for income tax exemptions exclude long-term Indian settlers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies “Sikkimese” definition for Income Tax Exemption, Invalidates Gender-Based Exclusion: Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Definition of “Sikkimese” in Income Tax Act: Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Fundamental Rights, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 10(26AAA), Judges, M.R. Shah, Tax Exemptions

Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Definition of “Sikkimese” in Income Tax Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the definition of “Sikkimese” under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is discriminatory against long-term Indian settlers and Sikkimese women. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim & Ors. vs. Union

Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Definition of “Sikkimese” in Income Tax Act: Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top