K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Contract Employees, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Recruitment Process, Regularization, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contract employees are entitled to regularization and what criteria should be used for their selection process. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors. Judgment Date: […]

Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits accused of murder under Section 302 IPC for lack of common intention: Ramesh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (22 March 2021)

/ Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Against Human Body, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vicarious Liability

Supreme Court acquits accused of murder under Section 302 IPC for lack of common intention: Ramesh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, without any

Supreme Court acquits accused of murder under Section 302 IPC for lack of common intention: Ramesh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (22 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtors (2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dishonour of Cheques, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtors (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) applies to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. CASE TYPE: Insolvency and Criminal Law Case Name: P.

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Bar Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtors (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Addresses Juvenile Status: Devilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (25 February 2021)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice Act, Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, K.M. Joseph, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Addresses Juvenile Status: Devilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of culpability in a murder case and the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Devilal and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment Date: 25 February 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Addresses Juvenile Status: Devilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (25 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court scrutinizes share transactions in Fortis Healthcare case: Daiichi Sankyo vs. Oscar Investments (2021)

/ Contempt of Court, Contempt of Court with Court Orders, Contempt of Court with Undertakings, Corporate Law, Corporate Law with Share Transactions, Indira Banerjee, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Shareholding, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court scrutinizes share transactions in Fortis Healthcare case: Daiichi Sankyo vs. Oscar Investments (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the transfer of shares of Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL) by Fortis Healthcare Holding Private Limited (FHHPL) was in violation of court orders and undertakings. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court, Corporate Law Case Name: M/s. Daiichi Sankyo Company

Supreme Court scrutinizes share transactions in Fortis Healthcare case: Daiichi Sankyo vs. Oscar Investments (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order refusing to condone delay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: Chintels India Ltd. vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2021) INSC 70 (11 February 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 133, Constitutional Law with Article 134A, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Appealability of Delay Condonation Rejection in Arbitration Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Chintels

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order refusing to condone delay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: Chintels India Ltd. vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2021) INSC 70 (11 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case: Ragini Dwivedi vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

/ Bail, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 27, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, Navin Sinha, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case: Ragini Dwivedi vs. State of Karnataka (2021) Date of the Judgment: January 21, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 21 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph Can a person be denied bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) based solely on statements and

Supreme Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case: Ragini Dwivedi vs. State of Karnataka (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Detailed Analysis of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 32A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, and K.M. Joseph, JJ. Can a group of homebuyers be required to meet a threshold before initiating insolvency proceedings against a builder? The Supreme Court of India recently

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Detailed Analysis of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Deduction for Cooperative Societies Providing Credit Facilities: Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 56, Deductions for Cooperative Societies, Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(19), Income-Tax Act, 1961 with Section 80P, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Primary Agricultural Credit Society, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Deduction for Cooperative Societies Providing Credit Facilities: Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether cooperative societies registered as primary agricultural credit societies are eligible for tax deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, if they provide credit facilities to members, regardless of whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Deduction for Cooperative Societies Providing Credit Facilities: Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Award: Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. New J.K. Roadways (2020)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41, Contract Law, Government Contracts, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman, Tender Disputes

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Award: Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. New J.K. Roadways (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of tender conditions and the extent of judicial review in tender matters. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tender Disputes Case Name: M/S GALAXY TRANSPORT AGENCIES, CONTRACTORS, TRADERS, TRANSPORTS AND SUPPLIERS vs. M/S NEW J.K. ROADWAYS, FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Award: Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. New J.K. Roadways (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Coal Supply Dispute: Anglo American Metallurgical Coal vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 94, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 95, International Commercial Arbitration, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Coal Supply Dispute: Anglo American Metallurgical Coal vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be set aside for perversity when the tribunal’s findings are based on a possible interpretation of the evidence, and whether the court can re-evaluate evidence in such cases. CASE TYPE: International

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Coal Supply Dispute: Anglo American Metallurgical Coal vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Rape Case, Dismisses Special Leave Petition: Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs. The Inspector of Police (2020)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Women, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Rape Case, Dismisses Special Leave Petition: Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs. The Inspector of Police (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for rape of a minor should be upheld based on concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Rape Case, Dismisses Special Leave Petition: Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs. The Inspector of Police (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top