Supreme Court Directs Regularization Based on Seniority: Union of India vs. Sant Lal LEGAL ISSUE: Whether casual workers are entitled to regularization based on seniority, especially when juniors have been regularized. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Sant Lal & Ors. Judgment Date: 8 January 2019 Date of the […]
Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 12 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Hemant Gupta, J. Can an executing court review a decree based on objections to territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case,
Supreme Court Orders Additional Compensation in LIC Policy Dispute Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1 Judges: Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. This was a two-judge bench. Can an insurance company withhold a policy and a customer’s money after accepting a proposal and premium? The
Supreme Court clarifies re-employment of retrenched workers in U.P. Jal Nigam: Badri Vishal Pandey vs. Rajesh Mittal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retrenched daily wage workers have a right to automatic reinstatement based on a previous court order. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court/Service Law Case Name: Badri Vishal Pandey & Ors. vs. Rajesh Mittal & Ors.
Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape and Murder Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a death sentence is warranted in a case involving the rape and murder of a minor, considering the possibility of reformation of the accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Child Sexual Abuse, Murder) Case Name: Viran Gyanlal Rajput vs. The State of
Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Chhattisgarh Murder Case: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty imposed on the appellant was justified under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Judgment Date]: 28 November 2018 Introduction Date
Supreme Court Directs Railways to Absorb Parcel Porters: Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether long-serving parcel and goods porters should be absorbed into regular railway employment. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Ram Bhajan Das & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 28
Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Discretion in Filling Vacancies from Extra Panel: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South East Central Railway (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate from the extra panel (20% over and above the vacancies) has a right to appointment if vacancies remain unfilled. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors.
Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Science Teacher Despite Lack of Sanctioned Post: Suresh Mani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher can be regularized despite the absence of a sanctioned post. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Suresh Mani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Judgment Date]: November 26,
Supreme Court Settles Family Property Dispute through Mediation: Meenakshi Juneja vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Resolution of ancestral property rights through court-facilitated mediation. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Dispute). Case Name: Meenakshi Juneja & Anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Judgment Date: 26 November 2018 Introduction Date of the
Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Settlement: Dr. Benoy Idicula Babu vs. Dr. Nisha Saira Benoy (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a divorce by mutual consent can be granted based on a settlement reached through court-assisted mediation. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial/Family Law Case Name: Dr. Benoy Idicula Babu Rep by P.O.A Holder P.I Babu &
Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Lemon and Pomegranate Trees in Land Acquisition Cases (20 November 2018) Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta, Hemant Gupta, JJ. Can the government provide different compensation for the same type of trees acquired under the same notification? The Supreme Court of
