Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of contempt in resolution plan disputes: Committee of Creditors of A MTEK Auto Limited vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Ors (2021)

/ Contempt Law, Contempt of Court, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges, M R Shah

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of contempt in resolution plan disputes: Committee of Creditors of A MTEK Auto Limited vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Ors (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party’s conduct in a corporate insolvency resolution process, specifically attempting to withdraw from an approved resolution plan and raising a plea of force majeure, constitutes […]

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of contempt in resolution plan disputes: Committee of Creditors of A MTEK Auto Limited vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian & Ors (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Refund with Interest in Unitech Land Dispute: Unitech vs. TSIIC (2021)

/ Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Act, Contract Act with Section 74, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, MR Shah

Supreme Court Orders Refund with Interest in Unitech Land Dispute: Unitech vs. TSIIC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a state entity is liable to refund payments with interest when a land development agreement fails due to lack of clear title. CASE TYPE: Contractual Dispute/Public Law Remedy Case Name: UNITECH Limited & Ors. vs. Telangana State Industrial

Supreme Court Orders Refund with Interest in Unitech Land Dispute: Unitech vs. TSIIC (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16(1), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 20, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Scribes in Civil Services Exam Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 75 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indira Banerjee, J, Sanjiv Khanna, J Can a person with a disability, not classified as having a “benchmark disability,” be denied a scribe for

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused’s actions constitute murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Khokan @ Khokhan

Supreme Court alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Intervention in Real Estate Project: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Judicial Review, M.R. Shah, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate Law

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Intervention in Real Estate Project: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in a real estate project under Article 32 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Constitutional Law Case Name: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors [Judgment Date]: 11 February

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Intervention in Real Estate Project: Upendra Choudhury vs. Bulandshahar Development Authority (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in cases of default during COVID-19: Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa (9 February 2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 10A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, MR Shah

Supreme Court clarifies Section 10A of IBC: Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) applies to applications filed before the provision came into force, for defaults occurring after March 25, 2020. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Ramesh Kymal vs. M/s Siemens Gamesa

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in cases of default during COVID-19: Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa (9 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Recall Application in Transferred Criminal Case: Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs. Manmohan Attavar (2021)

/ Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, M.R. Shah, Miscellaneous Application, Recall Application, Res Judicata

Supreme Court Dismisses Recall Application in Transferred Criminal Case: Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs. Manmohan Attavar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Maintainability of a second recall application for the same relief. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs. Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs. Judgment Date: 05 February 2021 Date of the Judgment: 05 February 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court Dismisses Recall Application in Transferred Criminal Case: Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs. Manmohan Attavar (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Panchayat Land Regularization for Encroachments Exceeding 200 Square Yards

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Encroachment, Judges, Land Law, M.R. Shah, Panchayat Land, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 with Rule 12(4), Regularization

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Panchayat Land Regularization for Encroachments Exceeding 200 Square Yards LEGAL ISSUE: Whether unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land exceeding 200 square yards can be regularized under Rule 12(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. CASE TYPE: Land Law, Panchayat Land Regularization. Case Name: Joginder and another vs. State

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Panchayat Land Regularization for Encroachments Exceeding 200 Square Yards Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 21(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(24), Judges, Related Party

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Party” Definition under IBC: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 1 February 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (29 January 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Public Employment, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Law with LARSGESS Scheme

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of the LARSGESS Scheme by the Union of India was valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to appointment under the scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Writ Petition Case Name: Manjit and Ors vs. Union

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (29 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14

/ Compensation, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Interest on Solatium, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14 Date of the Judgment: January 13, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 14 Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna Can a claimant receive interest on solatium (an additional sum awarded in land

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Illegal Hotel Demolition in Himachal Pradesh Forest Land (12 January 2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with Section 2, Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority Act, 1999, Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority Act, 1999 with Section 14(3)(e), Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Non-Forest Purpose

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Illegal Hotel Demolition in Himachal Pradesh Forest Land LEGAL ISSUE: Violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by constructing a hotel on forest land designated for a bus stand and parking. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority (HPBSM&DA) vs. The Central Empowered

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Illegal Hotel Demolition in Himachal Pradesh Forest Land (12 January 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top