Dinesh Maheshwari

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022)

/ Amicus Curiae in PIL, Aniruddha Bose, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Public Interest Litigation, Public Interest Litigation with Procedure

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party to a dispute can be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Suresh Srivastava & Ors. vs. Sundeep Bhutoria Judgment Date: March […]

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Corrects Clerical Error in Contempt Judgment: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (21 March 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Clerical Error Correction, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Contempt of Court, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Corrects Judgment on Contempt: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Correction of clerical error in a judgment. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court. Case Name: In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. Judgment Date: 21 March 2022 Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and

Supreme Court Corrects Clerical Error in Contempt Judgment: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 80, Court Fees Act, 1870, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(i), Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(iv), Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether ad valorem court fees are payable on the amount claimed in a suit for damages. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: State of Punjab and Others vs. Dev Brat Sharma Judgment Date: 16 March 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Contempt Order: Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi vs. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre (2022)

/ Appellate Procedure, Civil Law, Contempt of Court, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 2, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Sets Aside Contempt Order: Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi vs. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can direct an appeal to be decided by a forum that is no longer in existence due to changes in guidelines. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal, Contempt of Court Case Name: Sri Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi

Supreme Court Sets Aside Contempt Order: Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi vs. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for cognizance in criminal cases: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni (2022)

/ Cognizance, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 468, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Judges, Limitation, Offences Against Property, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Cognizance in Criminal Cases: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the relevant date for calculating the limitation period under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni & Ors. Judgment Date: 28 February 2022 Date of the Judgment: 28

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for cognizance in criminal cases: Amritlal vs. Shantilal Soni (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Play in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (25 February 2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 62, Judges, Resolution Plan Modification, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Play in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a resolution applicant can amend their resolution plan and whether the Adjudicating Authority can allow other resolution applicants to modify their plans to maintain a level playing field. CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law Case Name: Ajay

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Play in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (25 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Suresh Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh (25 February 2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 432, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Suresh Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2022 Citation: Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. The State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2013 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J and Vikram Nath, J Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Suresh Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh (25 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Opportunity in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (25 February 2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 62, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Opportunity in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in allowing both resolution applicants to modify their plans to ensure a level playing field. CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law Case Name: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma Judgment Date: 25

Supreme Court Upholds Fair Opportunity in Insolvency Resolution: Ajay Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (25 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, in an application under Section 9 of the

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Heinous Child Rape and Murder Case: Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 428, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 5/6

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Heinous Child Rape and Murder Case: Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a death sentence should be upheld in a case of child rape and murder, considering the possibility of reformation. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Heinous Child Rape and Murder Case: Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, and whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Creditor, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without providing an opportunity for response to the corporate debtor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/S Wizman Impex Pvt.

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top