Dinesh Maheshwari

Supreme Court allows condonation of delay based on prospective application of law in consumer case: Dr. A. Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. Amit Agarwal (2021) INSC 408 (08 July 2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 148, Condonation of Delay, Consumer Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Condonation of Delay Based on Prospective Application of Law in Consumer Case Date of the Judgment: 08 July 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 408 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. Can a delay in filing a written statement in a consumer case be condoned if the delay […]

Supreme Court allows condonation of delay based on prospective application of law in consumer case: Dr. A. Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. Amit Agarwal (2021) INSC 408 (08 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Confiscation of Illegally Imported Pulses: Union of India vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP (2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 11, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 125, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Section 3, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Confiscation of Illegally Imported Pulses: Union of India vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether illegally imported pulses, in violation of trade restrictions, are subject to absolute confiscation or can be released with a redemption fine. CASE TYPE: Customs Law, Import/Export Regulation Case Name: Union of India & Ors.

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Confiscation of Illegally Imported Pulses: Union of India vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court limits jail term in kidnapping and rape case: Sunil Kumar vs. State of UP (25 May 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 220, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 31, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376(1), Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Limits Jail Term in Kidnapping and Rape Case: Sunil Kumar vs. State of UP (2021) Date of the Judgment: 25 May 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 337 Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose Can a court impose consecutive sentences without specifying the order in which they should be served? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court limits jail term in kidnapping and rape case: Sunil Kumar vs. State of UP (25 May 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan School Fee Regulation Act, 2016: Indian School, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Dinesh Maheshwari, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Right to Education, School Fee Regulation

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan School Fee Regulation Act, 2016: Indian School, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 and the extent of state regulation on private unaided school fees. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Regulatory Law Case Name: Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr. vs. State

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan School Fee Regulation Act, 2016: Indian School, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Adjudicating Authority in Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan (24 March 2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Adjudicating Authority in Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan (24 March 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of powers and jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. CASE TYPE: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Case Name: Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors.

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Adjudicating Authority in Jaypee Infratech Resolution Plan (24 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the method of filling backlog vacancies in direct recruitment for reserved categories: The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shobana Etc. Etc. (05 March 2021)

/ Backlog Vacancies, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16(4B), Dinesh Maheshwari, Direct Recruitment, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Reservation Policy, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law, Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 with Section 27(f)

Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation Policy for Direct Recruitment in Tamil Nadu Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 3745-3754 of 2020 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. How should backlog vacancies for reserved categories be filled in direct recruitment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court settles the method of filling backlog vacancies in direct recruitment for reserved categories: The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shobana Etc. Etc. (05 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles mental cruelty as grounds for divorce in Army Officer’s case: Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) INSC 78

/ Dinesh Maheshwari, Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Matrimonial Law, Mental Cruelty, Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court settles mental cruelty as grounds for divorce in Army Officer’s case: Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) INSC 78 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether making malicious complaints against a spouse to their superiors and other authorities constitutes mental cruelty sufficient for divorce. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law Case Name: Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar

Supreme Court settles mental cruelty as grounds for divorce in Army Officer’s case: Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) INSC 78 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for no-confidence motion against Sarpanch: Subhash vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar (2021) INSC 123

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Local Self-Governance, Section 35-1A, Village Panchayat Act

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for no-confidence motion against Sarpanch: Subhash vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar (2021) INSC 123 LEGAL ISSUE: Procedure for no-confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch. CASE TYPE: Local Self-Governance/Panchayat Law. Case Name: Subhash & Ors. vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 26 February 2021 Date of the Judgment: 26 February

Supreme Court clarifies procedure for no-confidence motion against Sarpanch: Subhash vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar (2021) INSC 123 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Injury” in Seafarer Disability Claims: Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Dinesh Maheshwari, Disability Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Labour Law, Maritime Law, National Maritime Board Agreement, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies “Injury” in Seafarer Disability Claims: Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “injury” in maritime employment contracts for disability compensation. CASE TYPE: Labour Law/Service Law. Case Name: Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10 February 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 10

Supreme Court Clarifies “Injury” in Seafarer Disability Claims: Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows Advocate on Record to use “Law Chambers” style: In Re: Advocate on Record (20 January 2021)

/ Advocates on Record, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 145, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Supreme Court Rules, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 with Order IV

Supreme Court Allows Advocate on Record to Use “Law Chambers” Style: In Re: Advocate on Record (2021) Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 22 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can an Advocate on Record (AOR) register their practice using a style like “Law Chambers of

Supreme Court allows Advocate on Record to use “Law Chambers” style: In Re: Advocate on Record (20 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Landowner’s Rights, Emphasizing Due Process in Land Ceiling Cases: Bajranga vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Land Ceiling, Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 with Section 11, Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 with Section 46, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Landowner’s Rights: Bajranga vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a landowner be deprived of their land without proper adherence to legal procedures? This question was at the heart of

Supreme Court Upholds Landowner’s Rights, Emphasizing Due Process in Land Ceiling Cases: Bajranga vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Partition Rights, Rejects Disputed Sale Agreement: Venigalla Koteswaramma vs. Malempati Suryamba (2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXII, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 54

Supreme Court Upholds Partition Rights, Rejects Disputed Sale Agreement: Venigalla Koteswaramma vs. Malempati Suryamba (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a sale agreement and its impact on partition of property. CASE TYPE: Civil (Partition) Case Name: Venigalla Koteswaramma vs. Malempati Suryamba & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 19 January 2021 Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court Upholds Partition Rights, Rejects Disputed Sale Agreement: Venigalla Koteswaramma vs. Malempati Suryamba (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top