Indira Banerjee

Supreme Court Clarifies “Owner” Definition in Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020)

/ Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 10, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 157, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 2(30), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 50, R. Banumathi, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 19, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 20

Supreme Court Clarifies “Owner” Definition in Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the context of insurance claims. CASE TYPE: Motor Vehicle Insurance/Consumer Dispute Case Name: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. The New India […]

Supreme Court Clarifies “Owner” Definition in Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Attempted Murder Case: Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat (2020)

/ Arms Act, Arms Act with Section 25(1)(B)(a), Attempt to Murder, Bombay Police Act, Bombay Police Act with Section 135(1), Criminal Law, Eyewitness Testimony, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Indira Banerjee, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Attempted Murder Case: Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was reliable and if the chain of custody of the bullet was properly established in an attempted murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Mustak @

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Attempted Murder Case: Mustak @ Kanio Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Police Officer for Lack of Sanction: D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Karnataka Police Act, 1963 with Section 170, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Police Officer for Lack of Sanction: D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of a private complaint against a public servant without prior government sanction. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain [Judgment Date]: June 18, 2020

Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Police Officer for Lack of Sanction: D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates hearing for accused in revision against complaint dismissal: Subhash vs. Satish (2020) INSC 329

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 401(2), Indira Banerjee, Judges, Navin Sinha, Revisional Jurisdiction

Supreme Court mandates hearing for accused in revision against complaint dismissal: Subhash vs. Satish (2020) INSC 329 Date of the Judgment: June 18, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 329 Judges: Navin Sinha, J., Indira Banerjee, J. Can a criminal revision against the dismissal of a complaint be decided without hearing the accused? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court mandates hearing for accused in revision against complaint dismissal: Subhash vs. Satish (2020) INSC 329 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Rendition of Accounts in Banking Disputes: Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. vs. Central Bank of India (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VII Rule 11(d), Dinesh Maheshwari, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 22

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Rendition of Accounts: Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. vs. Central Bank of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the limitation period for filing a suit seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of excess charges by a bank. CASE TYPE: Civil – Banking Dispute Case Name: Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. vs.

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Rendition of Accounts in Banking Disputes: Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. vs. Central Bank of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Reimbursement of Sales Tax in Works Contracts: State of Orissa vs. M/S B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. (2020) INSC 381 (5 June 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 366(29-A), Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 45.2, Dinesh Maheshwari, General Conditions of Contract, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, Tax Law, Tax Law with Section 5(2)(AA)

Supreme Court Clarifies Reimbursement of Sales Tax in Works Contracts LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contractors are entitled to reimbursement of sales tax on works contracts under specific contractual clauses. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tax Law. Case Name: State of Orissa vs. M/S B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 5 June 2020 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Clarifies Reimbursement of Sales Tax in Works Contracts: State of Orissa vs. M/S B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. (2020) INSC 381 (5 June 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (28 May 2020)

/ Age of Majority, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 11, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Retirement Age, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who joined service as a minor should be retired based on a deemed age of 18 years at the time of joining, or on their actual date of birth. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (28 May 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to Cooperative Banks in Banking Law (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arun Mishra, Banking Law, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 5, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Entry 32 of List II, Constitutional Law with Entry 45 of List I, Distribution of Legislative Powers, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Settles Applicability of SARFAESI Act to Cooperative Banks (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) applies to cooperative banks. CASE TYPE: Banking Law Case Name: Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited Judgment Date: May 05, 2020

Supreme Court settles the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to Cooperative Banks in Banking Law (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority to Set Sugarcane Prices Above Central Minimum: West U.P. Sugar Mills Association vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (22 April 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arun Mishra, Concurrent List, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 246, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with Section 3(2)(c), Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies State Power to Fix Sugarcane Prices Above Central Minimum Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2020 Judges: Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose Can a state government fix sugarcane prices that are higher than the minimum price set by the central government? This was the core legal question

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Authority to Set Sugarcane Prices Above Central Minimum: West U.P. Sugar Mills Association vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (22 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the inclusion of neutral substances in determining drug quantities under the NDPS Act: Hira Singh vs. Union of India (22 April 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 2(viia), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 2(xxiiia), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 21

Supreme Court Clarifies Calculation of Drug Quantity in NDPS Act Cases Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 379 Judges: Arun Mishra J., Indira Banerjee J., M.R. Shah J. Can the weight of a neutral substance mixed with a narcotic drug be included when determining the quantity of the drug for the

Supreme Court clarifies the inclusion of neutral substances in determining drug quantities under the NDPS Act: Hira Singh vs. Union of India (22 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “paid” and “physical possession” under Section 24 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal (2020) INSC 242 (06 March 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, M. R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24, S. Ravindra Bhat, Vineet Saran

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically concerning the meaning of “paid” and “physical possession.” CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. ETC. Judgment Date: 06 March 2020 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court clarifies “paid” and “physical possession” under Section 24 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal (2020) INSC 242 (06 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 235(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 364, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M. R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body, Sentencing, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty was warranted in a case of triple murder based on circumstantial evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Judgment Date]: 5 March 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top