Indira Banerjee

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 21(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(24), Judges, Related Party

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Party” Definition under IBC: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 1 February 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: […]

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “related party” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix Arc vs. Spade Financial (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (29 January 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Public Employment, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Law with LARSGESS Scheme

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of the LARSGESS Scheme by the Union of India was valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to appointment under the scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Writ Petition Case Name: Manjit and Ors vs. Union

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (29 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021)

/ Acknowledgment of Liability, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is barred by limitation when the default occurred more than three years before the application was filed. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s. Reliance

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Casual Trader” definition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (21 January 2021)

/ Casual Trader, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Period, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 10A, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 10B, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 2(ccc), Sanjiv Khanna, Tax Assessment, Tax Law

Supreme Court Clarifies “Casual Trader” Definition Under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “Casual Trader” under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, concerning the time limit for tax assessment. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs. M/s Bhagat Singh [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies “Casual Trader” definition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (21 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Illegal Hotel Demolition in Himachal Pradesh Forest Land (12 January 2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with Section 2, Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority Act, 1999, Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority Act, 1999 with Section 14(3)(e), Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Non-Forest Purpose

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Illegal Hotel Demolition in Himachal Pradesh Forest Land LEGAL ISSUE: Violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by constructing a hotel on forest land designated for a bus stand and parking. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority (HPBSM&DA) vs. The Central Empowered

Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Illegal Hotel Demolition in Himachal Pradesh Forest Land (12 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules on Delay in Apartment Possession: IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Others (2021)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 14, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(r), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Haryana Fire Safety Act, 2009, Haryana Fire Safety Act, 2009 with Section 15, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Unfair Trade Practices

Supreme Court Rules on Delay in Apartment Possession: IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Others (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the date for calculating the deadline for handing over possession of an apartment, and the enforceability of one-sided contractual terms in apartment buyer agreements. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: IREO Grace

Supreme Court Rules on Delay in Apartment Possession: IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Others (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, Service Law, Service Law with Malik Mazhar Sultan Case

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of State Judicial Service Rules regarding the filling of vacancies. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others [Judgment Date]: 11 January 2021 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 17, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 with Section 33, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 with Section 34

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Indu Malhotra, J., and Indira Banerjee, J. (authored by Indu Malhotra, J.) Can an arbitration agreement within an unstamped

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies contract formation: Conditional Acceptance and Counter-Offers in Padia Timber Case (2021)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Navin Sinha

Supreme Court Clarifies Contract Formation: Conditional Acceptance and Counter-Offers in Padia Timber Case (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract is formed when a conditional offer is met with a further condition, regardless of whether the original offeror accepts the new condition. CASE TYPE: Contract Law Case Name: M/s. Padia Timber Company(P) Ltd. vs. The Board

Supreme Court clarifies contract formation: Conditional Acceptance and Counter-Offers in Padia Timber Case (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail and Orders CBI Probe in Dowry Death Case: Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 438, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with Sections 3/4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail and Orders CBI Probe in Dowry Death Case: Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether anticipatory bail granted by the High Court in a dowry death case was justified, and whether the investigation was adequate. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Dowry Death Case Name:

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail and Orders CBI Probe in Dowry Death Case: Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of anticipatory bail under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala (2020)

/ Anticipatory Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 with Section 3, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 with Section 4, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 with Section 7

Supreme Court Clarifies Anticipatory Bail Under Muslim Women Act: Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Rahna

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of anticipatory bail under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Protects Women’s Right to Shared Household Under Domestic Violence Act Over Senior Citizens Act: Smt. S Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner (2020)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 with Section 23, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 with Section 3, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 17, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 2(s), Shared Household

Supreme Court Protects Women’s Right to Shared Household Under Domestic Violence Act Over Senior Citizens Act: Smt. S Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can override the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, specifically regarding a woman’s right to

Supreme Court Protects Women’s Right to Shared Household Under Domestic Violence Act Over Senior Citizens Act: Smt. S Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top