M.R. Shah

Governor’s Discretion and Anti-Defection Law: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Maharashtra Political Crisis (2023) INSC 516

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 163, Constitutional Law with Article 212, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Election Law, Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Hima Kohli, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Tenth Schedule

Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Power and Tenth Schedule in Maharashtra Political Crisis LEGAL ISSUE: The extent of the Governor’s discretionary powers, the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, and the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in cases of political party splits. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, specifically concerning the powers of […]

Governor’s Discretion and Anti-Defection Law: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Maharashtra Political Crisis (2023) INSC 516 Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Criminal Case: Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat (2023)

/ Bench Hunting, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Criminal Law, Forum Shopping, Judges, Judicial Recusal, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt Case Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023 Citation: SLP (Crl.) No. 9445 of 2022 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can a judge be asked to recuse from a case simply because they made observations about a party in a previous, related case?

Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Criminal Case: Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt Case: Allegations of Forum Shopping Dismissed (10 May 2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Forum Shopping, Judges, Judicial Recusal, M.R. Shah, Principles of Judicial Recusal, Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a judge should recuse from a case based on prior observations made in a related matter. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat & Anr. Judgment Date: 10 May 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 10

Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt Case: Allegations of Forum Shopping Dismissed (10 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act in appointment of arbitrator: Shree Vishnu Constructions vs. Military Engineering Service (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Arbitration Law, C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act in appointment of arbitrator: Shree Vishnu Constructions vs. Military Engineering Service (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, specifically Section 11(6A), to court proceedings for the appointment of an arbitrator. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s. Shree Vishnu Constructions vs.

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act in appointment of arbitrator: Shree Vishnu Constructions vs. Military Engineering Service (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act: Shree Vishnu Constructions vs. Military Engineering Service (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with Section 26, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act: Shree Vishnu Constructions vs. Military Engineering Service (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to court proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the arbitration notice was issued before the 2015 amendment but the court application

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act: Shree Vishnu Constructions vs. Military Engineering Service (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Income Tax Case: Determination of Business Income vs. Capital Gains in Property Development (4 May 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Business Income, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 50C, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Remands Income Tax Case: Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the sale of development rights by a real estate developer should be treated as business income or capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Commissioner of Income Tax 8 Mumbai vs.

Supreme Court Remands Income Tax Case: Determination of Business Income vs. Capital Gains in Property Development (4 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of income from transfer of development rights: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (04 May 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Business Income, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 142(1), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Income Tax on Development Rights Transfer: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Glowshine Builders (2023) Date of the Judgment: 04 May 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 492 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. When is the sale of development rights considered a business transaction, and when is it a capital gain? The

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of income from transfer of development rights: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (04 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Bail Order in Murder Case: Rahul Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (2023)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Bail, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Overturns Bail Order in Murder Case: Rahul Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can grant bail in a murder case without considering the chargesheet and materials collected during the investigation. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Bail Case Name: Rahul Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan Judgment Date: May

Supreme Court Overturns Bail Order in Murder Case: Rahul Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC in Rape Cases: Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 190, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC in Rape Cases: Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of a Magistrate’s power to verify the truth and veracity of allegations when considering a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Kailash Vijayvargiya

Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC in Rape Cases: Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Rejects ‘Sham Transaction’ Claim: Damodhar Narayan Sawale vs. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 9, Indian Registration Act, 1908, Indian Registration Act, 1908 with Section 17, Judges, M.R. Shah, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 with Section 36A, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 with Section 36B, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 5, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 54

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Rejects ‘Sham Transaction’ Claim: Damodhar Narayan Sawale vs. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a registered sale deed can be deemed a sham transaction and void based on claims of it being a collateral security for a loan, and the applicability of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Rejects ‘Sham Transaction’ Claim: Damodhar Narayan Sawale vs. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Settles Land Dispute: Damodhar Narayan Sawale vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 9, Counterclaim, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 91, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 92, Judges, M.R. Shah, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 with Section 36A, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 with Section 36B, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 with Section 9(1), Sale, Transfer of Property, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 54

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Settles Land Dispute: Damodhar Narayan Sawale vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a registered sale deed and the applicability of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs. vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed, Settles Land Dispute: Damodhar Narayan Sawale vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Tamil Nadu Land Grabbing Special Cells: Government of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Thamarai Selvam (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, G.O. No. 423, G.O. No. 451, Government Orders, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 447, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Quashes Tamil Nadu Land Grabbing Special Cells: Government of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Thamarai Selvam (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu government can establish special cells to investigate “land grabbing” cases without a clear legal definition of the term. CASE TYPE: Criminal and Civil Case Name: Government of Tamil Nadu & Others

Supreme Court Quashes Tamil Nadu Land Grabbing Special Cells: Government of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Thamarai Selvam (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top