Indu Malhotra

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “first due” under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in cases of incorrect billing: Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (18 February 2020)

/ Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 56, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Law, Limitation Period, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies “First Due” Date Under Electricity Act: Ajmer Vidyut Nigam vs. Rahamatullah Khan (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “first due” in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning the limitation period for disconnection of electricity supply due to non-payment of dues. CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Consumer Law. Case Name: Assistant Engineer (D1), […]

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “first due” under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in cases of incorrect billing: Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (18 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes High Court order staying transfer of government employee: Union of India vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Judicial Review of Transfer Orders, Service Law, Transfer of Government Employees

Supreme Court quashes High Court order staying transfer of government employee: Union of India vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit (2020) Date of the Judgment: February 7, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 123 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indu Malhotra, J. Can a High Court interfere with a routine transfer order of a government employee?

Supreme Court quashes High Court order staying transfer of government employee: Union of India vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Holding Bank Liable in Insurance Claim Dispute: State Bank of India vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020)

/ Consumer Disputes Redressal, Consumer Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Insurance Claims, Judges, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Settlement

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Holding Bank Liable in Insurance Claim Dispute: State Bank of India vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can hold a bank liable for an insurance claim when the borrower has not challenged the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Holding Bank Liable in Insurance Claim Dispute: State Bank of India vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in NDPS Act Cases: State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, Offences and Penalties

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in NDPS Act Cases: State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court correctly granted bail to the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without adhering to the stringent conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Narcotics) Case

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in NDPS Act Cases: State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates Provident Fund for Contractual Employees of Pawan Hans: Pawan Hans Ltd. vs. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana (2020)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 2(45), Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with Section 1(3), Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with Section 16, Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with Section 2(f), Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court mandates Provident Fund for Contractual Employees of Pawan Hans: Pawan Hans Ltd. vs. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contractual employees are entitled to provident fund benefits under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or the company’s own trust regulations. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name: M/S. PAWAN HANS

Supreme Court mandates Provident Fund for Contractual Employees of Pawan Hans: Pawan Hans Ltd. vs. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Property: Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Compensation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Property

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Property: Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can dispossess a citizen of their property without due process of law and payment of compensation. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition/Constitutional Law Case Name: Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: January

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Property: Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Revised Income Tax Returns Post-Amalgamation: Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 230, Company Amalgamation, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 119(2)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 139(5), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 170(1), Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Allows Revised Income Tax Returns Post-Amalgamation: Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether revised income tax returns can be filed after the statutory deadline due to company amalgamation proceedings. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: M/S Dalmia Power Limited & Anr. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1,

Supreme Court Allows Revised Income Tax Returns Post-Amalgamation: Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute: Saketa Vaksana LLP vs. Kaukutla Sarala (2019)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Rule 2, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Krishna Murari, Property Law, Specific Performance, Temporary Injunction, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute: Saketa Vaksana LLP vs. Kaukutla Sarala (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a temporary injunction should be granted in a property dispute where possession and payment of consideration are contested. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Saketa Vaksana LLP & Anr. vs. Kaukutla Sarala

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute: Saketa Vaksana LLP vs. Kaukutla Sarala (2019) Read Post »

Child Custody: Supreme Court Affirms Father’s Custody Based on Child’s Preference (2019) INSC 1004 (16 December 2019)

/ Child Custody, Child Welfare, Family Law, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 7, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Krishna Murari, Parens Patriae Jurisdiction, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Custody in Child Welfare Case Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1004 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J., Krishna Murari, J. Can a child’s preference be the deciding factor in a custody battle? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a

Child Custody: Supreme Court Affirms Father’s Custody Based on Child’s Preference (2019) INSC 1004 (16 December 2019) Read Post »

Custody Battle Resolved: Supreme Court Directs Return of Children to US in Jasmeet Kaur vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (12 December 2019)

/ Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 9, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Return of Children to US in Matrimonial Dispute: Jasmeet Kaur vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Jurisdiction in child custody disputes involving parents residing in different countries. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial and Guardianship Law Case Name: Jasmeet Kaur vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Judgment Date: 12 December 2019 Date

Custody Battle Resolved: Supreme Court Directs Return of Children to US in Jasmeet Kaur vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (12 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019)

/ Customary Law, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 48, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 5(ii), Impartible Estates, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Primogeniture, Princely States, Property Law, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether perpetual leasehold rights of a property, part of a former princely state, should be considered coparcenary property or an impartible estate governed by primogeniture. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Trijugi Narain (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and

Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 195, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 181, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 182, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Relating to False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the investigation into a rape allegation was fair and whether false statements made before the court warrant contempt proceedings. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: ABCD v. Union of India Judgment Date: 10 December 2019 Date

Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top