B.V. Nagarathna

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Government Resolutions on land transfers to societies formed after lease to builders in Maharashtra: State of Maharashtra vs. Mr. Aspi Chinoy (2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 with Section 295, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 with Section 40

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Government Resolutions on Land Transfers in Maharashtra Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5809 of 2011 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a state government impose premium charges on the transfer of flats in a cooperative society when the land was initially leased […]

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Government Resolutions on land transfers to societies formed after lease to builders in Maharashtra: State of Maharashtra vs. Mr. Aspi Chinoy (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Area for Electricity Distribution Licenses: Jindal Steel vs. Chhattisgarh State (29 September 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Area of Supply, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 243(Q), Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 14, Judges, Licensing

Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Area for Electricity Distribution Licenses: Jindal Steel vs. Chhattisgarh State (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “area of supply” for electricity distribution licenses. CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Regulatory Law. Case Name: M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited vs. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 29 September 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Area for Electricity Distribution Licenses: Jindal Steel vs. Chhattisgarh State (29 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Striking Off of Company: Nirendra Nath Kar vs. Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors. (29 September 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 303, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 560, Judges, Striking Off of Companies

Supreme Court Upholds Striking Off of Company: Nirendra Nath Kar vs. Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an individual, not officially recorded as a director in the Registrar of Companies’ records, has the right to challenge the striking off of a company’s name. CASE TYPE: Company Law Case Name: Nirendra Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Striking Off of Company: Nirendra Nath Kar vs. Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors. (29 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Review of Promotion, Cites Inconsistent ACR: Union of India vs. G.R. Meghwal (23 September 2022)

/ Administrative Law, Annual Confidential Report, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Office Memorandums, Promotion, Service Law

Supreme Court Directs Review of Promotion, Cites Inconsistent ACR: Union of India vs. G.R. Meghwal (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a below-benchmark Annual Confidential Report (ACR) can be the sole basis for denying promotion when previous ACRs were significantly higher and the reporting officer was the same. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Promotion) Case Name: Union of

Supreme Court Directs Review of Promotion, Cites Inconsistent ACR: Union of India vs. G.R. Meghwal (23 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Notional Increase in Infrastructure Charges for Telecom Providers: BSNL vs. Tata Communications (22 September 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with Section 4, Interconnection Agreements, Judges

Supreme Court Allows Notional Increase in Infrastructure Charges for Telecom Providers LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) can retrospectively apply revised infrastructure charges and claim a notional increase in charges from telecom service providers. CASE TYPE: Telecom Regulatory Dispute Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others vs. M/s Tata Communications Ltd. Etc.

Supreme Court Allows Notional Increase in Infrastructure Charges for Telecom Providers: BSNL vs. Tata Communications (22 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Remedy in Tax Assessment Dispute: State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship (India) Limited (20 September 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M.R. Shah, Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, Tax Law

Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Remedy in Tax Assessment Dispute: State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship (India) Limited (20 September 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can entertain a writ petition against an assessment order when a statutory remedy of appeal is available. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: The State of Maharashtra and Others vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Remedy in Tax Assessment Dispute: State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship (India) Limited (20 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR in R. Abirami vs. D. Santhanam (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Criminal Law, Judges, Quashing of FIR

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR in R. Abirami vs. D. Santhanam (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: R. Abirami vs. D. Santhanam & Others Judgment Date: September 6, 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR in R. Abirami vs. D. Santhanam (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment scope: No automatic jobs for retirees’ heirs in Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika case (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Industrial Dispute, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law, Service Law with Article 14

Supreme Court on Compassionate Appointment for Retirees’ Heirs: Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Case (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the heirs of retiring employees are entitled to compassionate appointment. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Industrial Dispute Case Name: Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union [Judgment Date]: September 5, 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 5, 2022

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment scope: No automatic jobs for retirees’ heirs in Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika case (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes charges against Selection Committee members in compassionate appointment case: Munna Prasad Verma vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 744 (2 September 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 419, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges

Supreme Court quashes charges against Selection Committee members in compassionate appointment case Date of the Judgment: 2 September 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 744 Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can members of a selection committee be held criminally liable for relying on documents submitted by an applicant, without any direct involvement in the

Supreme Court quashes charges against Selection Committee members in compassionate appointment case: Munna Prasad Verma vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 744 (2 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Highways, Clarifies Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules: M. Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Land Acquisition, M.R. Shah, Procedure for objections, Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 with Section 15, Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 with Rule 5

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Highways, Clarifies Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules: M. Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) Date of the Judgment: September 2, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 742 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a land acquisition be invalidated if the requisitioning authority’s response to objections

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Highways, Clarifies Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules: M. Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pension: State of Tripura vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee (24 August 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension, Service Law, Service Law with Cut-off Date

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pension: State of Tripura vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee (2022) Date of the Judgment: 24 August 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2022 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a state government set a cut-off date for the implementation of revised pension benefits, or must all

Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Revised Pension: State of Tripura vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee (24 August 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional issues in arbitration: General Manager East Coast Railway vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (22 July 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 42, Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Issues in Arbitration: General Manager East Coast Railway vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings when prior applications have been filed in a different court. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: General Manager East Coast Railway Rail Sadan & Anr. vs. Hindustan Construction

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional issues in arbitration: General Manager East Coast Railway vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (22 July 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top