Indu Malhotra

Supreme Court Rules Submarine Pay Must Be Included in Pension Calculations for Naval Veterans: N.N. Godfred & Others vs. Union of India & Others (2018) INSC 623 (11 July 2018)

/ Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 with Regulation 84, Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 with Regulation 86, Pension, S. Abdul Nazeer, Service Law

Supreme Court Rules Submarine Pay Must Be Included in Pension Calculations for Naval Veterans LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Submarine Pay should be included in the calculation of service pension for retired naval personnel. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Pension Case Name: N.N. Godfred & Others vs. Union of India & Others Judgment Date: 11 July 2018 Date of […]

Supreme Court Rules Submarine Pay Must Be Included in Pension Calculations for Naval Veterans: N.N. Godfred & Others vs. Union of India & Others (2018) INSC 623 (11 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Fingerprints Under Identification of Prisoners Act in Murder Case: Sonvir vs. State (2018)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 with Section 4, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 with Section 5, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 with Section 8, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 392, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Fingerprints Under Identification of Prisoners Act in Murder Case: Sonvir vs. State (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of fingerprint evidence obtained by police during investigation without a Magistrate’s order. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Sonvir @ Somvir v. The State of NCT of Delhi [Judgment Date]: July 2, 2018 Introduction

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Fingerprints Under Identification of Prisoners Act in Murder Case: Sonvir vs. State (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs States to Adopt Model Rules for Consumer Fora: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association (2018)

/ Consumer Fora, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 30, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Model Rules

Supreme Court Directs States to Adopt Model Rules for Consumer Fora: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring uniform rules for Consumer Fora across India. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association Judgment Date: May 18, 2018

Supreme Court Directs States to Adopt Model Rules for Consumer Fora: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs CBI to complete investigation within two months in Jat Agitation Case: Dilawar vs. State of Haryana (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 57, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Sets Timeline for CBI Investigation in Jat Agitation Case: Dilawar vs. State of Haryana (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether there should be timelines for completing investigation, especially when the accused is in custody. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Dilawar vs. State of Haryana. [Judgment Date]: May 1, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: May

Supreme Court directs CBI to complete investigation within two months in Jat Agitation Case: Dilawar vs. State of Haryana (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top