Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Award in Electric Bus Contract: Tata Motors vs. BEST (2023)

/ Contract Law, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Judicial Review, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Tender, Tender Process

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Award in Electric Bus Contract: Tata Motors vs. BEST (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court, after disqualifying a bidder in a tender process, should further investigate the eligibility of other bidders. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tender Process Case Name: TATA Motors Limited vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport […]

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Award in Electric Bus Contract: Tata Motors vs. BEST (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 480 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI and J. B. Pardiwala, J. Can a party initiate arbitration proceedings years after the cause of action arises, simply because

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 9

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator can be dismissed if the claims are time-barred. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/S B AND T AG vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE [Judgment Date]: 18 May 2023 Date of

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Default Bail and Sanction Under UAPA: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173, Default Bail, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 with Section 16, Sanction for Prosecution, Special Courts, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 43D, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 45

Supreme Court Clarifies Default Bail and Sanction Under UAPA: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a chargesheet filed without a valid sanction order can be considered a complete chargesheet for the purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and whether the filing of chargesheet

Supreme Court Clarifies Default Bail and Sanction Under UAPA: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Default Bail in UAPA Case: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 167(2), Default Bail, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Trial by Special Court, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act with Section 45(1)

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Default Bail in UAPA Case: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a chargesheet filed without a valid sanction order is incomplete and thus, entitles an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Unlawful Activities

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Default Bail in UAPA Case: Judgebir Singh vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Negligence in CISF: Union of India vs. Subrata Nath (23 November 2022)

/ Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 with Rule 32, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Negligence in CISF: Union of India vs. Subrata Nath (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in a departmental inquiry. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: Union of India and Others vs. Subrata Nath Judgment Date: 23

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Negligence in CISF: Union of India vs. Subrata Nath (23 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Fabricated Documents in Juvenility Claim: XYZ vs. Abhisheik & Anr (2022)

/ Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with Section 7A, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 with Rule 12(3)

Supreme Court Rejects Fabricated Documents in Juvenility Claim: XYZ vs. Abhisheik & Anr (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of juvenility based on fabricated documents. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: XYZ vs. Abhisheik & Anr Judgment Date: 02 September 2022 Date of the Judgment: 02 September 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 766 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

Supreme Court Rejects Fabricated Documents in Juvenility Claim: XYZ vs. Abhisheik & Anr (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Homicide Case Citing Weak Evidence (27 May 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Homicide Case Citing Weak Evidence (27 May 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession of a co-accused, and the “last seen together” theory, when the factum of homicidal death is not conclusively proven. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Chandrapal vs. State

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Homicide Case Citing Weak Evidence (27 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer for Misconduct in Land Compensation Cases: Muzaffar Husain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 235, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Pension Curtailment, Service Law, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 6(e)

Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer for Misconduct in Land Compensation Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a judicial officer can be disciplined for misconduct for awarding enhanced compensation in land acquisition cases. CASE TYPE: Disciplinary Proceedings/Service Law. Case Name: Muzaffar Husain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Judgment Date: 6 May 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer for Misconduct in Land Compensation Cases: Muzaffar Husain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Date of Birth in VRS Dispute: Shankar Lal vs Hindustan Copper Ltd (20 April 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, Mines Act, 1952, Mines Act, 1952 with Form B, Service Law, Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Date of Birth in VRS Dispute: Shankar Lal vs Hindustan Copper Ltd (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the correct date of birth for an employee’s retirement benefits. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Shankar Lal vs Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 20 April 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Date of Birth in VRS Dispute: Shankar Lal vs Hindustan Copper Ltd (20 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Upgrade Based on ‘Equal Pay’ Principle: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2007, Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008, Judges, Pension Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Denies Pension Upgrade Based on ‘Equal Pay’ Principle: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle to pension benefits for retired government employees. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 27 January 2022

Supreme Court Denies Pension Upgrade Based on ‘Equal Pay’ Principle: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies pension benefits for retired forest officers: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, Pension Benefits, Service Law, Service Rules

Supreme Court clarifies pension benefits for retired forest officers: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022) Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 1012 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J. Can a retired government employee claim pension benefits based on rules introduced after their retirement? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies pension benefits for retired forest officers: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top