L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Misrepresentation, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 316 Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a party avoid a contract if they were misled about the […]

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition to Reopen Mahatma Gandhi Assassination Case: Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs. Union of India (28 March 2018)

/ Commissions of Inquiry, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Finality of Judgments, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Kapur Commission, L. Nageswara Rao, Recommendatory Nature of Reports, Reopening of Cases, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition to Reopen Mahatma Gandhi Assassination Case: Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case that has resulted in conviction and execution of sentences can be reviewed based on new research. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs. Union of India Ministry

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition to Reopen Mahatma Gandhi Assassination Case: Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis vs. Union of India (28 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale of Hotel, Clarifies Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: ITC vs. Blue Coast Hotels (2018)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 21, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. A. Bobde, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(3A), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 31(i)

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale of Hotel, Clarifies Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: ITC vs. Blue Coast Hotels (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the failure to reply to a borrower’s representation under Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) invalidates subsequent actions by the

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale of Hotel, Clarifies Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act: ITC vs. Blue Coast Hotels (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Employee: ARIES vs. Devendra Joshi (2018)

/ Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Probationary Employee Termination, S.A. Bobde, Service Law, Termination Simpliciter

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Employee: ARIES vs. Devendra Joshi (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of a probationary employee’s service is punitive if a preliminary inquiry for misconduct was conducted but not pursued, and the termination order is framed as a termination simpliciter. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Director Aryabhatta Research Institute

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probationary Employee: ARIES vs. Devendra Joshi (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Regularization of Industrial Plot: Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Pitabasa Mishra (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980, Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 with Section 32, Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 with Section 33, Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 with Section 34, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Upholds Regularization of Industrial Plot: Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Pitabasa Mishra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation can regularize unauthorized occupation of land without specific regulations and through methods other than public auction. CASE TYPE: Land Allotment/Industrial Law Case Name: Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Supreme Court Upholds Regularization of Industrial Plot: Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Pitabasa Mishra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the use of scaling method in civil service examinations: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav (2018)

/ Appointments, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Recruitment, S.A. Bobde, Service Law, Service Law with U.P. Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1976

Supreme Court on Scaling Method in Civil Service Exams: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav (2018) Date of the Judgment: February 16, 2018 Citation: U.P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav & Anr. (2018) INSC 114 Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a public service commission use the scaling

Supreme Court clarifies the use of scaling method in civil service examinations: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

/ Bail, Criminal Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Murder, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court’s grant of bail was justified in a case involving a murder motivated by communal hatred. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Mubin Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Judgment Date: 08

Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clause by reference to standard terms: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7(5), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Clarifies Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Contracts: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a general reference to standard terms and conditions in a contract is sufficient to incorporate an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. INOX WIND LTD. vs M/S THERMOCABLES LTD. Judgment Date: 05 January

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clause by reference to standard terms: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Imposing Major Penalties in Bank Service Rules: State Bank of India vs. B.R. Saini (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 311(2), Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Principles of Natural Justice, Rule 68(3), State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, S.A. Bobde, Service Law, State Bank of India Officers Service Rules

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second show-cause notice is required before imposing a major penalty on a bank employee after the disciplinary authority has already provided the inquiry report and an opportunity to respond. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State Bank of India & Ors. vs. B.R. Saini Judgment Date: 15 December 2017 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Imposing Major Penalties in Bank Service Rules: State Bank of India vs. B.R. Saini (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies OBC reservation for central posts in Uttarakhand: Khilendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (28 November 2017)

/ Appointment to Government Posts, Central Government Services, Constitutional Law, Equality before law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, Other Backward Classes (OBC), Reservation in Government Jobs, Reservation Law, S.A. Bobde, Service Law, Social Justice

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 19862 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14201 of 2011) and Civil Appeal Nos. 19859-19860 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) Nos. 18584-85 of 2012) Judges: S.A. Bobde, J. and L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a

Supreme Court clarifies OBC reservation for central posts in Uttarakhand: Khilendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Embezzlement Case, Modifies Sentence: Naresh Chaubey vs CBI (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 465, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 471, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the Appellant for misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds was valid. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Naresh Chaubey vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Judgment Date: 16 November 2017 Date of the Judgment: 16 November 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 948 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Embezzlement Case, Modifies Sentence: Naresh Chaubey vs CBI (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Right: Sakharam Ganesh Pujari vs. Husen Aba Bahadur (2017)

/ Agricultural Land, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 with Chapter IIIAA, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 with Section 32F, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 with Section 32P, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Landlord Rights, Landlord-Tenant Law, S.A. Bobde, Tenant Rights

Can a tenant’s right to purchase land be extended indefinitely, even after the statutory period has expired? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948. This judgment clarifies the timelines for tenants to exercise their purchase rights, especially when a landlord has served in

Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Right: Sakharam Ganesh Pujari vs. Husen Aba Bahadur (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top