K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, B.V. Nagarathna, Cinematograph Act, 1952, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 14, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 337, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 338, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a public servant can be prosecuted without prior government sanction for actions taken in their official capacity. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of […]

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession over Waqf Property: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan (2023)

/ Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 96, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 27, Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqf Act, 1960, Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 with Section 49A, Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 with Section 69, Waqf Act, 1995, Waqf Act, 1995 with Section 107, Waqf Act, 1995 with Section 52

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession over Waqf Property: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a beneficiary of a Waqf can acquire title to Waqf property through adverse possession. CASE TYPE: Waqf Law, Property Law, Limitation Law. Case Name: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan and

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession over Waqf Property: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Over Waqf Property: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan (2023)

/ Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Law, Limitation Law with Article 65, Limitation Law with Section 27, Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqf Act, 1960, Waqf Act, 1995, Waqf Law, Waqf Law with Section 51(1)

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Over Waqf Property: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether title to Waqf property can be acquired through adverse possession. CASE TYPE: Waqf Law, Property Law, Limitation Law. Case Name: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan. [Judgment Date]: 13 April 2023

Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Over Waqf Property: Sabir Ali Khan vs. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Tribunal’s Order on “Change in Law” Claims in Power Purchase Agreement: Haryana Power Purchase Centre vs. Sasan Power Ltd (06 April 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 111, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Misrepresentation, Regulatory Powers

Date of the Judgment: 06 April 2023 Citation: Not Available in the source Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a power generating company claim compensation for increased costs due to a change in interpretation of law or due to errors in reports provided during the bidding process? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Overturns Tribunal’s Order on “Change in Law” Claims in Power Purchase Agreement: Haryana Power Purchase Centre vs. Sasan Power Ltd (06 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” in Power Purchase Agreements: Haryana Power Purchase Centre vs. Sasan Power Ltd (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 79, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” in Power Purchase Agreements: Haryana Power Purchase Centre vs. Sasan Power Ltd (2023) Date of the Judgment: April 6, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 326 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a power generating company claim compensation for increased costs due to a change in the interpretation

Supreme Court Clarifies “Change in Law” in Power Purchase Agreements: Haryana Power Purchase Centre vs. Sasan Power Ltd (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Drug Inspector Appointments: Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (28 March 2023)

/ Appointment of Drug Inspectors, B.V. Nagarathna, Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 with Rule 9, Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 with Rule 9A, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Selection Process, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Drug Inspector Appointments: Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the selection process for drug inspectors was flawed due to procedural irregularities and the competence of the selection committee. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. vs. The State of Jammu and

Supreme Court Upholds Drug Inspector Appointments: Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (28 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Limits Arbitrator’s Power to Award Claims Beyond Final Bill: Union of India vs. Bharat Enterprise (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 16, Arbitration Law with Section 37, B.V. Nagarathna, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clauses 65 and 65A, Final Bill, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Sections 15 to 18, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Krishna Murari, No Claims Certificate

Supreme Court Limits Arbitrator’s Power to Award Claims Beyond Final Bill: Union of India vs. Bharat Enterprise (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award claims not included in the final bill submitted by a contractor, especially when the contract prohibits such claims. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Limits Arbitrator’s Power to Award Claims Beyond Final Bill: Union of India vs. Bharat Enterprise (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates a committee for appointment of Election Commissioners: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2 March 2023)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Appointment of Election Commissioners, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 324, Election Commission of India, Election Law, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Mandates Independent Panel for Election Commissioner Appointments Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 151 Judges: K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. Can the Election Commission of India, the body responsible for overseeing free and fair elections, truly be independent if its members are solely appointed by

Supreme Court mandates a committee for appointment of Election Commissioners: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates Independent Panel for Election Commissioner Appointments: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 324, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Mandates Independent Panel for Election Commissioner Appointments LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the process of appointing members to the Election Commission of India, specifically whether the current procedure ensures the independence and impartiality of the commission. CASE TYPE: This case falls under Public Interest Litigation concerning constitutional law, specifically regarding

Supreme Court mandates Independent Panel for Election Commissioner Appointments: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places Named After Foreign Invaders (27 February 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places Named After Foreign Invaders (27 February 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the names of places named after foreign invaders should be renamed to uphold the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 27 February 2023 Date

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places Named After Foreign Invaders (27 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (27 February 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (2023) Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 174 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can the past dictate the present? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a petition seeking to rename historical places named

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (27 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 with Paragraph 8(II)(vi), CRZ-II Areas, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Protection Act, 1986 with CRZ Notification, 2011, Environmental Law, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the term “in notified ports” under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011, concerning the permissibility of storage facilities for non-hazardous cargo. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law. Case Name: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt.

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top