M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Quashes Vice-Chancellor Appointment for Lack of Experience: Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 319, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019, Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 with Section 10, University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 with Regulation 7.3.0

Supreme Court Quashes Vice-Chancellor Appointment for Lack of Experience: Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Vice-Chancellor’s appointment is valid if they do not meet the minimum experience requirements set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, and whether the appointment process followed the prescribed procedures. CASE TYPE: Education Law, […]

Supreme Court Quashes Vice-Chancellor Appointment for Lack of Experience: Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Compensation for Stay of Eviction Decree: Sumer Corporation vs. Vijay Anant Gangan (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Eviction, Judges, Landlord-Tenant Disputes, Lease, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Property Law, Stay of Execution

Supreme Court Revisits Compensation for Stay of Eviction Decree: Sumer Corporation vs. Vijay Anant Gangan (2022) Date of the Judgment: November 9, 2022 Citation: Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7774 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 16019 of 2020), 2022 INSC 568 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh,

Supreme Court Revisits Compensation for Stay of Eviction Decree: Sumer Corporation vs. Vijay Anant Gangan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court orders fresh trial on readiness and willingness in specific performance suit: V.S. Ramakrishnan vs. P.M. Muhammed Ali (2022) INSC 981 (09 November 2022)

/ Agreement to Sell, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Consideration, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, Specific Relief Act with Section 16

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Trial on Readiness and Willingness in Specific Performance Suit Date of the Judgment: 09 November 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 981 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. In a case concerning a dispute over a property sale agreement, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether a lower court can dismiss

Supreme Court orders fresh trial on readiness and willingness in specific performance suit: V.S. Ramakrishnan vs. P.M. Muhammed Ali (2022) INSC 981 (09 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: DDA vs. Asha Jain (2022)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Law, Lapse of Land Acquisition, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24, Rights of Subsequent Purchasers

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: DDA vs. Asha Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, regarding lapse of land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs.

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: DDA vs. Asha Jain (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Fee Regulation: Narayana Medical College vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022)

/ Education Law, Education Law with Rule 4 of Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee Rules, 2006, Fee Regulation, Judges, M.R. Shah, Private Institutions, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Fee Regulation: Narayana Medical College vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can unilaterally enhance tuition fees for private medical colleges without the recommendation of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC). CASE TYPE: Education Law, Fee Regulation Case Name: Narayana Medical College vs. The State of

Supreme Court Upholds Fee Regulation: Narayana Medical College vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports: Chowgule & Company Limited vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (04 November 2022)

/ Applicability of Promissory Estoppel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Exim Policy 1988-1991, Exim Policy 1990-1993, Export Incentives, Foreign Trade Policy, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an exporter is entitled to an additional license based on the export of processed iron ore when the export occurred during a period where the policy specifically excluded “Minerals and Ores” from eligibility. CASE TYPE: Foreign Trade Policy/Export Incentives Case

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports: Chowgule & Company Limited vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (04 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Disallows Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts in Absence of Rules: Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Education Law, Examination Law, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts

Supreme Court Disallows Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts in Absence of Rules: Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh (2022) Date of the Judgment: November 4, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1173 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a High Court order the re-evaluation of answer scripts when the relevant rules

Supreme Court Disallows Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts in Absence of Rules: Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the issue of extension of time under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme in banking cases: State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2022) INSC 990 (04 November 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court on OTS Scheme: No Extension as a Right Date of the Judgment: 04 November 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 990 Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari Can a borrower demand an extension of time to repay a loan under a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme as a matter of right? The Supreme

Supreme Court settles the issue of extension of time under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme in banking cases: State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2022) INSC 990 (04 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Denies Relief to Subsequent Purchaser: Delhi Development Authority vs. Damini Wadhwa (2022)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Locus Standi, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2), Subsequent Purchaser

Delhi Development Authority vs. Damini Wadhwa: Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent purchaser of land can claim the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Damini

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Denies Relief to Subsequent Purchaser: Delhi Development Authority vs. Damini Wadhwa (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Compensation for Illegal Vehicle Seizure in Consumer Case (4 November 2022)

/ Compensation, Consumer Disputes, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 2, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 49, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Vehicle Seizure

Supreme Court Modifies Compensation for Illegal Vehicle Seizure in Consumer Case LEGAL ISSUE: What is the appropriate method for calculating compensation for loss suffered due to the illegal seizure and sale of a hypothecated vehicle? CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Nizamuddin Judgment Date: 4 November 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Modifies Compensation for Illegal Vehicle Seizure in Consumer Case (4 November 2022) Read Post »

Land Allotment Authority Dispute: Supreme Court Remands Case of Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra (4 November 2022)

/ Civil Procedure, Judges, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of Authorities, Land Allotment, Land Law, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Powers of High Court, Rehabilitation Schemes, Remand of Cases

Supreme Court Remands Land Allotment Dispute: Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Authority of Deputy Collector to allot land under rehabilitation scheme CASE TYPE: Land Allotment Dispute Case Name: Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Judgment Date: 4 November 2022 Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2022 Citation:

Land Allotment Authority Dispute: Supreme Court Remands Case of Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra (4 November 2022) Read Post »

Arbitration Clause Enforced: Supreme Court Resolves Shareholder Dispute in VGP Marine Kingdom Case (2022)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Contractual Obligations, Corporate Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Shareholders Agreement

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Shareholder Dispute: VGP Marine Kingdom vs. Kay Ellen Arnold (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can refuse to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if prior arbitration proceedings or related matters are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Arbitration Clause Enforced: Supreme Court Resolves Shareholder Dispute in VGP Marine Kingdom Case (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top