L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Manipur University’s Reservation Policy: Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs. Manipur University (2022)

/ Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 with Section 2, Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 with Section 3, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Sixth Schedule, Hima Kohli, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Manipur University’s Reservation Policy: Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs. Manipur University (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of reservation policies for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Central Educational Institutions (CEIs), particularly in the North-Eastern region of India. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal, Educational Law Case Name: Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar […]

Supreme Court Upholds Manipur University’s Reservation Policy: Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs. Manipur University (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes ex-post facto approval of charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 14

Supreme Court quashes ex-post facto approval of charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings can be validated by ex-post facto approval from the disciplinary authority. CASE TYPE: Service Law; Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India & Anr.

Supreme Court quashes ex-post facto approval of charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in Insolvency Case: Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 61(3), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in Insolvency Case: Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was right in interfering with the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) regarding the approval of a resolution plan. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Ngaitlang Dhar

Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in Insolvency Case: Ngaitlang Dhar vs. Panna Pragati Infrastructure (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Land Dispute Case: Ram Gopal vs. Joint Secretary (2021)

/ Civil Law, Condonation of Delay, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Limitation, Review Petition, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Land Dispute Case: Ram Gopal vs. Joint Secretary (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a review petition can be dismissed solely on the grounds of an unreasonable delay. CASE TYPE: Civil (Land Dispute) Case Name: Ram Gopal vs. The Joint Secretary Development and Panchayat Department and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 14 December

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Land Dispute Case: Ram Gopal vs. Joint Secretary (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Relinquishment Deed by Karta in Joint Hindu Family Property Dispute: M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma (2021)

/ Hindu Law, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Joint Hindu Family Property, Judges, Karta's Powers, L. Nageswara Rao, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 109, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 58, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Relinquishment Deed by Karta in Joint Hindu Family Property Dispute: M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Karta (head of a Hindu family) can execute a valid relinquishment deed on behalf of his branch of the family, including the interest of minor coparceners, and the limitation period for challenging

Supreme Court Upholds Relinquishment Deed by Karta in Joint Hindu Family Property Dispute: M.R. Vinoda vs. M.S. Susheelamma (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Will Dispute: Murthy vs. Saradambal (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 68, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 63, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Will Dispute: Murthy vs. Saradambal (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a Will and the burden of proof on the propounder to remove suspicious circumstances. CASE TYPE: Testamentary/Civil Case Name: Murthy & Ors. vs. C. Saradambal & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10th December, 2021 Date of the Judgment: 10th December,

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Will Dispute: Murthy vs. Saradambal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732 Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 732 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J. (authored by B.R. Gavai, J.) Can a death sentence be upheld

Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life imprisonment in triple murder case: Bhagchandra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) INSC 732 Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Wife’s Plea to Return to Matrimonial Home Amidst Divorce Proceedings: Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff vs. Poonam Jaidev Shroff (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Divorce Proceedings, Family Law, Interim Maintenance, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Matrimonial Disputes, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 2(s), Shared Household

Supreme Court Refuses Wife’s Plea to Return to Matrimonial Home Amidst Divorce Proceedings: Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff vs. Poonam Jaidev Shroff (2021) Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2021 Citation: Not Available Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J. Can a wife, amidst a contentious divorce and multiple legal battles, compel her husband to

Supreme Court Refuses Wife’s Plea to Return to Matrimonial Home Amidst Divorce Proceedings: Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff vs. Poonam Jaidev Shroff (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (29 November 2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with Section 2, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether certain areas in Delhi, including roadside plantations and areas along the Ridge, qualify as “forest land” requiring prior approval for non-forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. CASE TYPE: Environmental

Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (29 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Caste-Based Honor Killing Case: Hari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 November 2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjiv Khanna, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(3)(10)

Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Caste-Based Honor Killing Case: Hari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly in cases of caste-based violence and honor killings. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Caste Discrimination, Honor Killing Case Name: Hari & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Caste-Based Honor Killing Case: Hari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to 30 Years in Gruesome Family Murder Case: Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (26 November 2021)

/ B. V. Nagarathna, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Constitutional Law with Article 145, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to 30 Years in Gruesome Family Murder Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment, considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convicts. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand Judgment Date: 26 November

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to 30 Years in Gruesome Family Murder Case: Mofil Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand (26 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724

/ Aniruddha Bose, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Declaration of Title, Injunction, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Property Law, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 34

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for declaration of title is maintainable when the plaintiff fails to prove possession but has claimed consequential relief of injunction. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Civil Case Name: Akkamma

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724 Read Post »

Scroll to Top