D. Y. Chandrachud

Supreme Court Clarifies Tribunal Appointments Process Amidst Ongoing Litigation

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Writ Petitions, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Rules of 2017, Tribunal Appointments

Supreme Court Clarifies Tribunal Appointments Process Amidst Ongoing Litigation Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 137 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J The Supreme Court addressed the complexities surrounding the appointment of members to various tribunals in India. This order clarifies the interim directions […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Tribunal Appointments Process Amidst Ongoing Litigation Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 with Section 25, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Promotion, Seniority Dispute, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) was correct in determining the seniority of faculty members based on the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, or whether the grading system should have been the sole determinant.

Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement in Property Dispute: Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2017) INSC 754

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Amendment of Pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of the Judgment: December 15, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 754 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr D Y Chandrachud, J Can a party amend their written statement to include a new defense, even if it is years after the initial filing? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement in Property Dispute: Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2017) INSC 754 Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns contributory negligence finding in motor accident case: Dinesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd (2017)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Contributory Negligence, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with Contributory Negligence, Negligence

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claimant’s failure to produce a driving license automatically implies contributory negligence in a motor accident case. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation. Case Name: Sri Dinesh Kumar. J @ Dinesh J vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 December 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017 Citation:

Supreme Court overturns contributory negligence finding in motor accident case: Dinesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A, D. Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a central statute pending before a High Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court when a similar challenge is already pending before it. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Transfer Petition Case Name: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court Transfers Challenge to Forest Rights Act: Union of India vs. Akhila Bharathiya Adivasi Vikasa Parishad (2017) Read Post »

Pharmacy Registration: Supreme Court settles the applicability of First Register after State Reorganization (2017) INSC 607 (3 July 2017)

/ Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 with Section 84, Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 with Section 85, D. Y. Chandrachud, Education Regulations, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, N. V. Ramana, Pharmacy Act, 1948, Pharmacy Act, 1948 with Section 30, Pharmacy Act, 1948 with Section 32

Can a newly formed state create a fresh register of pharmacists, or does the existing register of the parent state apply? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a case concerning the reorganization of states and the registration of pharmacists. This judgment clarifies the legal position of pharmacist registrations after state divisions.

Pharmacy Registration: Supreme Court settles the applicability of First Register after State Reorganization (2017) INSC 607 (3 July 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top