Supreme Court quashes cheque bounce case against director for lack of company as accused: Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a director of a company can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if the company is not named as an accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Cheque Dishonour) Case Name: […]
Supreme Court clarifies promotion rules in Assam Rifles: Union of India vs. Krishna Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promotions should be based on rules existing when vacancies arise or when the promotion is considered. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 January 2019
Supreme Court Revises Land Compensation in Haryana Acquisition Case LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition/Civil. Case Name: Wazir & Anr. vs. State of Haryana. Judgment Date: 11 January 2019. Can the government acquire land for development and pay compensation based on
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint in Family Share Dispute: Suresh Kumar Goyal vs. State of UP (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Quashing of criminal proceedings in a family dispute over share ownership. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Judgment Date: 11 January 2019 Date of
Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Airman for Misconduct: Yogesh Pathania vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to uphold the dismissal of an airman for misconduct was legally sound. CASE TYPE: Armed Forces Disciplinary Matter Case Name: Ex. LAC Yogesh Pathania vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date:
Supreme Court clarifies property disposal under Section 452 CrPC: BSNL vs. Suryanarayanan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the disposal of seized property after the conclusion of a criminal trial under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Suryanarayanan & Anr. Judgment Date:
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Legal Assistance in Summary Court Martial: Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India (2018) Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 1088 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can a soldier be denied legal representation during a Summary Court Martial? The Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court overturns High Court order on contract employee reinstatement: APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract employee, dismissed after a departmental inquiry, is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service based on a previous judgment concerning employees terminated without inquiry. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Depot Manager, APSRTC vs.
Supreme Court Upholds Pay for Extended Study Leave in Army Medical Corps Case: Union of India vs. Col. P.D. Poonekar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Army Medical Corps officer is entitled to pay and allowances for an extended period of study leave, when the extension was sanctioned by the President of India. CASE TYPE: Service
Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for contract employees after misconduct: The Depot Manager vs. Sri R.K. Reddy (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract employee, terminated for misconduct after a departmental inquiry, is entitled to continuity of service upon re-engagement. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Labour Law. Case Name: The Depot Manager
Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for contract employees dismissed after inquiry: Depot Manager vs. S. Krishna (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract employee, dismissed after a departmental inquiry, is entitled to continuity of service upon re-engagement. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Depot Manager & Ors. vs. Sri S.
Supreme Court overturns High Court order on continuity of service for re-engaged contract employees: APSRTC vs. B. Venkataiah (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a re-engaged contract employee is entitled to continuity of service from the date of their initial termination until their re-engagement for the purpose of regularization, even if the termination was not challenged. CASE
