Indu Malhotra

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 acquits accused in dacoity-murder case due to lack of evidence: Hari Om vs. State of U.P. (2021) INSC 1

/ Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 412, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Krishna Murari, Offences Against Property, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court acquits accused in dacoity-murder case due to lack of evidence: Hari Om vs. State of U.P. (2021) INSC 1 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the accused for offences related to dacoity and murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Hari Om @ Hero vs. State of U.P. Judgment

Supreme Court acquits accused in dacoity-murder case due to lack of evidence: Hari Om vs. State of U.P. (2021) INSC 1 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 »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in Turtle seizure case: Titty Alias George Kurian vs. The Deputy Range Forest Officer (2020) INSC 516

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 with Schedule I, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 with Section 9

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in Turtle seizure case: Titty Alias George Kurian vs. The Deputy Range Forest Officer (2020) INSC 516 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the seizure of an ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’ constitutes an offense under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, if that specific species is not

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in Turtle seizure case: Titty Alias George Kurian vs. The Deputy Range Forest Officer (2020) INSC 516 Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Child Custody Order: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2020)

/ Child Custody, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 2(5), Constitutional Law with Article 53, Family Law, Family Law with Child Welfare, Hemant Gupta, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Modifies Child Custody Order: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of child custody and visitation rights. CASE TYPE: Family Law – Child Custody. Case Name: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra. [Judgment Date]: December 08, 2020 Date of the Judgment: December 08, 2020. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Uday Umesh

Supreme Court Modifies Child Custody Order: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (2020) INSC 895 (1 December 2020)

/ Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948, Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948 with Section 9, Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948 with Section 9A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Legitimate Expectation, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case Date of the Judgment: 1 December 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 895 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J. Can a state government renege on its policy promises, especially when businesses have relied on them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical

Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Electricity Duty Exemption Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (2020) INSC 895 (1 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Railway Protection Force Neglect of Duty Case: Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey (25 November 2020)

/ Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Judicial Review, K. M. Joseph, Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 with Section 11, Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 with Rule 146.2, Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 with Rule 229, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Railway Protection Force Neglect of Duty Case Date of the Judgment: 25 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 913 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, K. M. Joseph Can a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, overturn a disciplinary authority’s decision of compulsory retirement and order reinstatement with back

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement in Railway Protection Force Neglect of Duty Case: Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey (25 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies SEBI’s power to pass ex-parte orders in insider trading cases: SEBI vs. Udayant Malhoutra (2020)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Ex-Parte Orders, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Insider Trading, Judges, Section 11(4), Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

Supreme Court clarifies SEBI’s power to pass ex-parte orders in insider trading cases: SEBI vs. Udayant Malhoutra (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) can pass an ex-parte interim order directing the deposit of funds during an investigation for insider trading. CASE TYPE: Securities Law, Insider Trading Case Name: Securities

Supreme Court clarifies SEBI’s power to pass ex-parte orders in insider trading cases: SEBI vs. Udayant Malhoutra (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintenance Laws and Procedures in Matrimonial Disputes (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 125, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 25, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Guidelines on Maintenance in Matrimonial Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Guidelines for maintenance in matrimonial disputes, addressing overlapping jurisdictions and enforcement. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Criminal Procedure. Case Name: Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 4 November 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 730 Judges: Indu Malhotra, J.,

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintenance Laws and Procedures in Matrimonial Disputes (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020)

/ Criminal Law, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Eyewitness Testimony, Forensic Evidence, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder case, particularly when there are inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rajesh @ Sarkari

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top