J.B. Pardiwala

Supreme Court mandates equal facilities for all persons with disabilities in examinations: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (2025) INSC 142 (03 February 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Inclusive Education, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 2(s)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether all persons with disabilities (PwD), not just those with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), are entitled to the same examination facilities, such as scribes and compensatory time.CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Disability Rights) Case Name: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 03 February 2025 Introduction Date of the […]

Supreme Court mandates equal facilities for all persons with disabilities in examinations: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (2025) INSC 142 (03 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Compensation and Ecological Reversal in Vellore Tannery Pollution Case (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Public Trust Doctrine, R. Mahadevan, Right to Healthy Environment, Sustainable Development, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 24, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 25, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 26

LEGAL ISSUE: Liability for environmental damage and the extent of compensation in cases of continuing pollution. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee vs. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others; All India Skin and Hide Tanners and Merchants Association vs. Loss of Ecology (Prevention & Compensation Authority)

Supreme Court Mandates Compensation and Ecological Reversal in Vellore Tannery Pollution Case (2025) Read Post »

Subsequent Purchasers’ Rights: Supreme Court Clarifies on Leave to Appeal in Specific Performance Cases (2025)

/ Appeals under CPC, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 146, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Lis Pendens, R. Mahadevan, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52

Date of the Judgment: January 29, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 121 Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan. This was a unanimous decision. Can a subsequent purchaser of a property, who was not a party to the original suit, appeal a decree for specific performance? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question,

Subsequent Purchasers’ Rights: Supreme Court Clarifies on Leave to Appeal in Specific Performance Cases (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes conviction in murder case, emphasizes limits of revisional jurisdiction: Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 120 (29 January 2025)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 401, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Revisional Jurisdiction

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 120 Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan Can a High Court reverse an acquittal order in its revisional jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal. The court overturned a High Court’s decision that had convicted the

Supreme Court quashes conviction in murder case, emphasizes limits of revisional jurisdiction: Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 120 (29 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Merger Doctrine in Specific Performance Suits: Balbir Singh & Anr vs. Baldev Singh (D) (2025) INSC 81 (17 January 2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 148, Execution of Decree, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 28

Supreme Court Clarifies Merger Doctrine in Specific Performance Suits Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 81 Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J. Can a decree for specific performance be automatically nullified if the payment isn’t made within the initial timeframe set by the trial court, even after the High

Supreme Court Clarifies Merger Doctrine in Specific Performance Suits: Balbir Singh & Anr vs. Baldev Singh (D) (2025) INSC 81 (17 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Intra-State Prison Transfer for Security Reasons: State of Jharkhand vs. Vikash Tiwary (2025)

/ Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Law, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Prisoner Transfer, Prisoners Act, 1900, Prisoners Act, 1900 with Section 29, R. Mahadevan

Supreme Court Upholds Intra-State Prison Transfer for Security Reasons: State of Jharkhand vs. Vikash Tiwary (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an intra-state transfer of a convicted prisoner can be ordered by the Inspector General of Prisons based on administrative grounds related to security concerns. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: The State of Jharkhand & Others

Supreme Court Upholds Intra-State Prison Transfer for Security Reasons: State of Jharkhand vs. Vikash Tiwary (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Order in Second Appeal: U. Sudheera vs. C. Yashoda (2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Order in Second Appeal: U. Sudheera vs. C. Yashoda (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can pass an interim order in a second appeal before framing substantial questions of law. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS vs. C. YASHODA & OTHERS [Judgment Date]: 17 January 2025

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Order in Second Appeal: U. Sudheera vs. C. Yashoda (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 with Rule 10, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 with Section 3

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring basic sanitation and hygiene in court premises as a fundamental right. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 January 2025 Date of the Judgment: 15

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Specific Performance Suit Not Barred by Prior Injunction Suit: Cuddalore Powergen vs. Chemplast Cuddalore (2025) INSC 73

/ Agreement for Sale, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order II Rule 2, Contract Law, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Rejection of Plaint, Specific Performance

Specific Performance Suit Not Barred by Prior Injunction Suit: Cuddalore Powergen vs. Chemplast Cuddalore (2025) INSC 73 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by a prior suit for permanent injunction concerning the same property. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Contract Law, Specific Performance Case Name: Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd

Specific Performance Suit Not Barred by Prior Injunction Suit: Cuddalore Powergen vs. Chemplast Cuddalore (2025) INSC 73 Read Post »

Vicarious Liability of Directors: Supreme Court quashes complaint under Punjab Land Preservation Act (2025) INSC 34

/ Corporate Law, Corporate Liability, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 with Section 19, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 with Section 4, R. Mahadevan, Vicarious Liability

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 34 Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan Can company directors be held liable for environmental offenses committed by their company? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of vicarious liability under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The

Vicarious Liability of Directors: Supreme Court quashes complaint under Punjab Land Preservation Act (2025) INSC 34 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Capital Loss on Share Reduction: Jupiter Capital Case (2025)

/ Capital Gains, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 66, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(47), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 45, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 38 Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan Can a reduction in share capital lead to a capital loss for tax purposes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. The court clarified that a

Supreme Court Clarifies Capital Loss on Share Reduction: Jupiter Capital Case (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Government Employee as Arbitrator in Glock Asia-Pacific vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 12(5), Arbitration Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 299, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Impartiality of Arbitrators, Indu Malhotra, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Seventh Schedule, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Government Employee as Arbitrator in Glock Asia-Pacific vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government employee can be appointed as an arbitrator in a dispute where the government is a party, given conflict of interest concerns. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD. vs. UNION

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Government Employee as Arbitrator in Glock Asia-Pacific vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top