K.M. Joseph

Competition Act Applicability: Supreme Court Rules on Coal India’s Monopoly (2023)

/ Abuse of Dominant Position, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, B.V. Nagarathna, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 4(1), Competition Act, 2002 with Section 60, Competition Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 31B, Constitutional Law with Article 39(b), Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Competition Act to Coal India Limited (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Competition Act, 2002 to Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, which operate under a statutory monopoly. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Coal India Limited and Anr. vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 15 June […]

Competition Act Applicability: Supreme Court Rules on Coal India’s Monopoly (2023) Read Post »

Competition Act Applicability: Supreme Court Rules on Coal India’s Monopoly Status (2023)

/ Abuse of Dominant Position, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, B.V. Nagarathna, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 4, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 60, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 31B, Constitutional Law with Article 39(b), Directive Principles of State Policy, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Competition Act to Coal India Limited LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Competition Act, 2002 to Coal India Limited, a statutory monopoly. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Coal India Limited and Anr. vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr. Judgment Date: 15 June 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 15

Competition Act Applicability: Supreme Court Rules on Coal India’s Monopoly Status (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Share Allotment in Closely Held Company: Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel vs. Ambika Food Products (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Board of Directors, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 397, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 398, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 81, Corporate Governance, Fiduciary Duty, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Share Allotment

Date of the Judgment: June 15, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 575 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a company allot additional shares to existing shareholders when some shareholders choose not to participate? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a dispute over share allotment in a

Supreme Court Upholds Share Allotment in Closely Held Company: Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel vs. Ambika Food Products (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Share Allotment in Family Business Dispute: Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel vs. Ambika Food Products (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 397, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 398, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 81, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Upholds Share Allotment in Family Business Dispute: Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel vs. Ambika Food Products (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the allotment of shares in a private company was valid when existing shareholders were given the option to apply for additional shares, and some shareholders chose not to participate. CASE TYPE: Company Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Share Allotment in Family Business Dispute: Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel vs. Ambika Food Products (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decrees in Small Causes Court Cases: Arti Dixit & Anr vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors (2023) INSC 478 (18 May 2023)

/ Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 145, Ex-parte Decree, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 with Section 17, Security Deposit, Setting Aside Decree

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decrees in Small Causes Court Cases Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 478 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can an application to set aside an ex-parte decree be entertained if the applicant fails to deposit the decretal amount or

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decrees in Small Causes Court Cases: Arti Dixit & Anr vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors (2023) INSC 478 (18 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: A Review of Animal Welfare Laws (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 254(2), Constitutional Law with Article 29, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with Section 22, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: A Review of Animal Welfare Laws (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of state amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, legalizing traditional bull-related sports. CASE TYPE: Animal Welfare, Constitutional Law Case Name: The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India

Supreme Court Upholds Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: A Review of Animal Welfare Laws (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State Laws on Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with Section 22, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds State Laws on Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether state amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, legalizing traditional sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races, are valid. CASE TYPE: Animal Welfare/Constitutional Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds State Laws on Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bullock Cart Races: Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case

/ Aravind Kumar, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 20(b)(ii)(c)

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the non-surrender of a co-accused who was granted bail can be a valid ground to reject the bail application of another accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) Case Name: Sebil Elanjimpally vs. The State

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case

/ Aravind Kumar, Bail, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 20

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the non-surrender of a co-accused who was released on bail is a valid ground to reject the bail application of another co-accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) Case Name: Sebil Elanjimpally v. The State

Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Small Causes Court: Arti Dixit & Anr vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors (2023)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 145, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 with Section 17

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Arti Dixit & Anr vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application to set aside an ex-parte decree in a Small Causes Court is maintainable if the applicant fails to deposit the decretal amount or furnish valid security at the

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Security Deposit for Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Small Causes Court: Arti Dixit & Anr vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra & Ors (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Advance Increments for Lecturers with PhDs: Sree Sankaracharya University vs. Dr. Manu (2023)

/ Advance Increments, B.V. Nagarathna, Clarification vs. Amendment, Government Order, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Retrospective Application, Retrospective Effect of Orders, Service Law, Vested Rights

Supreme Court Clarifies Advance Increments for Lecturers with PhDs: Sree Sankaracharya University vs. Dr. Manu (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether lecturers with a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment are eligible for additional advance increments upon placement in the selection grade. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Clarifies Advance Increments for Lecturers with PhDs: Sree Sankaracharya University vs. Dr. Manu (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Other Valuable Articles” Under Section 69A of Income Tax Act: M/s. D.N. Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2023)

/ Bailment, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Hrishikesh Roy, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 69, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 69A, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Clarifies “Other Valuable Articles” Under Section 69A of Income Tax Act: M/s. D.N. Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bitumen can be classified as “other valuable articles” under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether a carrier of goods can be considered the owner of those

Supreme Court Clarifies “Other Valuable Articles” Under Section 69A of Income Tax Act: M/s. D.N. Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top