Dinesh Maheshwari

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency, Allows CIRP to Continue with Modifications: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore Arora (2023)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency, Allows CIRP to Continue with Modifications: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore Arora (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) can order a project-wise Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) instead of a company-wide CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Indiabulls […]

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency, Allows CIRP to Continue with Modifications: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore Arora (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Constitutional Law with Article 298, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 5, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 6, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 7, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State can challenge the validity of a Central law under Article 131 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Original Suit Case Name: State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India & Others Judgment Date: 11 May

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

State’s Right to Challenge Central Laws: Supreme Court Addresses Maintainability of Meghalaya’s Suit on Lottery Regulations (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Dinesh Maheshwari, Federalism, Judges, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 5, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 6, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 7, Original Jurisdiction, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Addresses State’s Right to Challenge Central Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State can challenge the constitutional validity of a Central law under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Original Suit Case Name: State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India & Others

State’s Right to Challenge Central Laws: Supreme Court Addresses Maintainability of Meghalaya’s Suit on Lottery Regulations (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency Resolution: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore (2023)

/ Committee of Creditors (CoC), Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency Resolution: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) can order a project-wise insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Ram Kishore Arora & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Stays Project-Wise Insolvency Resolution: Indiabulls vs. Ram Kishore (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Relating to Documents, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal FIR can be quashed when it arises from a civil dispute and is used to exert pressure, especially when there’s a significant delay in raising the dispute and the allegations under the SC/ST Act appear

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Against Property, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(15)

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 5112 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Can a long-standing civil dispute over land ownership justify a criminal complaint? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question,

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 28, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Contract Law, Contract Law with Fuel Supply Contract, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Power Purchase Agreement, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 448 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Kumar, J. Can a court interfere with an arbitrator’s decision on a complex commercial contract? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement Dispute: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023) INSC 514

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 28, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Dinesh Maheshwari, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86(1)(f), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement Dispute Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 514 Judges: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar. This was a unanimous decision by a two-judge bench, with the opinion authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. Can an arbitral award be overturned by a court simply

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award on Power Purchase Agreement Dispute: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Goa (2023) INSC 514 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 254(2), Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sanjay Kumar, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu land acquisition laws are discriminatory and arbitrary compared to the Central Land Acquisition Act. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case Name: C.S. Gopalakrishnan ETC. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 254, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition Law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sanjay Kumar, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 510 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Kumar, J. Can State laws for land acquisition, which are different from the central law, be valid? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) Read Post »

Official Liquidator Liable for Post-Liquidation Taxes: Supreme Court Judgment Analysis

/ Aniruddha Bose, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 529A, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 530, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 with Section 185, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 100

Official Liquidator Liable for Post-Liquidation Taxes: Supreme Court Judgment Analysis LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Official Liquidator is liable for property and water taxes accrued on a company’s assets after the winding-up order but before the sale of the assets. CASE TYPE: Company Law, Liquidation, Property Tax Case Name: Official Liquidator vs. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam

Official Liquidator Liable for Post-Liquidation Taxes: Supreme Court Judgment Analysis Read Post »

Supreme Court settles liability for post-liquidation taxes in company winding up: Official Liquidator vs. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam (2023) INSC 489 (04 May 2023)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 529A, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 530, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 with Section 185, Preferential Payments

Official Liquidator vs. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam: Supreme Court Settles Liability for Post-Liquidation Taxes Date of the Judgment: 04 May 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 489 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Aniruddha Bose, J. Can an Official Liquidator (OL) be held liable for property and water taxes that accrue on a company’s assets after the company has

Supreme Court settles liability for post-liquidation taxes in company winding up: Official Liquidator vs. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam (2023) INSC 489 (04 May 2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top