Indu Malhotra

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for death of Indian worker abroad in motor accident: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Contributory Negligence, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Motor Accident Compensation, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 166, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for death of Indian worker abroad in motor accident: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation in motor accident death cases involving an Indian citizen working abroad. CASE TYPE: Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ […]

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for death of Indian worker abroad in motor accident: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Sangita Arya vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Compensation Calculation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Motor Accident Claims, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with Section 166, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Sangita Arya vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation in motor accident claims, specifically concerning the assessment of income and the application of appropriate multipliers and future prospects. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Case Name: Smt. Sangita Arya & Ors. vs. Oriental

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Sangita Arya vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Probation, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants LEGAL ISSUE: Seniority determination of civil servants who fail to pass departmental exams within the stipulated probation period. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Warad Murti Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Judgment Date: 15 June 2020 Date of

Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Restrictions on Agricultural Land Transfers via Wills: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 with Section 43, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 with Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Restrictions on Land Transfer, Testamentary Disposition, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Restrictions on Agricultural Land Transfers via Wills: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether agricultural land can be transferred to a non-agriculturist through a will under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. CASE TYPE: Land Law, Tenancy Law Case Name: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia etc. vs. State

Supreme Court Clarifies Restrictions on Agricultural Land Transfers via Wills: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies powers of appellate authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in property valuation disputes.

/ Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with Section 47A, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Appellate Authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of powers of the appellate authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in cases of undervaluation of property during registration. CASE TYPE: Stamp Duty, Property Valuation Case Name: The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil

Supreme Court clarifies powers of appellate authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in property valuation disputes. Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award: Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. NEEPCO (22 May 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Patent Illegality, R. Banumathi, Setting Aside Arbitral Awards

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award: Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. NEEPCO (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in setting aside an arbitral award based on the interpretation of contract clauses and the application of the “patent illegality” principle under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award: Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. NEEPCO (22 May 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Inherent Powers, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy, Ranjan Gogoi, Review Jurisdiction, S. Abdul Nazeer, S.A. Bobde, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court Rules, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases (2020) Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. This was a nine-judge bench. Can the Supreme

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Detaining Authority’s Duty to Consider Representation in Preventive Detention Cases: Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India (2020)

/ COFEPOSA Act, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 22, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Preventive Detention Law, Preventive Detention Law with Section 3(1), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Detaining Authority’s Duty in Preventive Detention Cases (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Detaining Authority must independently consider a detainee’s representation before receiving the Advisory Board’s report. CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law Case Name: Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 04 March 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court clarifies Detaining Authority’s Duty to Consider Representation in Preventive Detention Cases: Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Inquiry into Irregular Teacher Appointments: Ramesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)

/ Administrative Law, Appointment Rules, Disciplinary Proceedings, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Natural Justice, Public Appointments, Rule of Law, S. Abdul Nazeer, Service Law, Service Law with U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981

Supreme Court Upholds Inquiry into Irregular Teacher Appointments: Ramesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 210 Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Indu Malhotra, J. Can a government official, accused of making irregular appointments, claim protection under orders from higher authorities? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Inquiry into Irregular Teacher Appointments: Ramesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)

/ Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 27, Hemant Gupta, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning the recovery of a dead body and a weapon based on disclosure statements. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Challenge to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Shakti Nath & Ors. vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 18 February 2020 Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules on withholding pension and gratuity during pending criminal cases: Dr. Hira Lal vs. State of Bihar (2020)

/ Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 with Rule 27, Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 with Rule 43, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Right to Property, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court on Withholding Pension and Gratuity Pending Criminal Proceedings: Dr. Hira Lal vs. State of Bihar (2020) Date of the Judgment: February 18, 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 137 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indu Malhotra, J. Can a state government withhold the pension and gratuity of a retired employee because of pending criminal

Supreme Court clarifies rules on withholding pension and gratuity during pending criminal cases: Dr. Hira Lal vs. State of Bihar (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top