M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Forged Certificate: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (21 April 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Disciplinary Proceedings, Dismissal from Service, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 471, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Forged Certificate: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss an employee for submitting a forged educational certificate. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri […]

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Forged Certificate: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (21 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, M.R. Shah, Stale Claims, Time-barred claims

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when the arbitration clause is invoked after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Vishram Varu & Co.

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Head Constable for Entering Women’s Barracks: Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. Director General, SSB (20 April 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, M.R. Shah, Proportionality of Punishment, Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 with Section 43, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Head Constable for Entering Women’s Barracks: Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. Director General, SSB (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate for a Head Constable who entered a women’s barrack, given that a female constable involved received a lesser penalty. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Disciplinary

Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Head Constable for Entering Women’s Barracks: Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. Director General, SSB (20 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Order: Gyan Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(28C), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 271(1)(c), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 274(2), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Order: Gyan Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Maintainability of appeal before High Court when tax effect is below prescribed limit. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Appeal Case Name: Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain through LR vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I [Judgment Date]: April 19, 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Order: Gyan Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Postal Assistant Fraud: Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 with Rule 3(1)(i), Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 with Rule 3(1)(ii), Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, M.R. Shah, Punishment, Service Law, Service Law with Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Postal Assistant Fraud: Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy (2022) Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 401 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a disciplinary authority’s decision to remove a public servant for serious fraud be overturned by a court based on sympathy?

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Postal Assistant Fraud: Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies CIRP Costs and Workmen’s Dues in Insolvency: Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Sundaresh Bhatt (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 326, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 327, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 36(4), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(13), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies CIRP Costs and Workmen’s Dues in Insolvency: Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of what constitutes “Insolvency Resolution Process Costs” (CIRP costs) and the priority of workmen’s dues during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Sunil Kumar Jain and others vs. Sundaresh

Supreme Court Clarifies CIRP Costs and Workmen’s Dues in Insolvency: Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards: Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 19

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 434 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a company challenge an arbitration award against it without depositing 75% of the awarded amount? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, clarified that

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards: Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances compensation for land acquisition in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation case (19 April 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, M.R. Shah, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 with Section 32(2), Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 with Section 34

Supreme Court enhances compensation for land acquisition in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation case Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2022 Citation: [Not Available in the provided text] Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. When land is acquired for industrial development, how should the compensation be calculated? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court enhances compensation for land acquisition in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation case (19 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXVIII Rule 5, Interim Measures, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral tribunal can order a lessee to deposit the full rental amount as an interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the lessee

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the issue of waiting lists in teacher recruitment: Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022)

/ Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act with Section 169, Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act with Section 195, Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act with Section 243, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law, Teacher Recruitment, Waiting List

Supreme Court Upholds No Waiting List Rule in Teacher Recruitment: Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate can claim appointment to a post that remained unfilled due to a selected candidate not joining, when there is no provision for a waiting list. CASE TYPE: Service Law; Teacher Recruitment.

Supreme Court settles the issue of waiting lists in teacher recruitment: Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Teachers with Specialized History Degrees: Indresh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Education Law, Education Law with Teacher Eligibility, Educational Qualifications, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law, Service Law with Educational Qualifications, Teacher Recruitment

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Teachers with Specialized History Degrees: Indresh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether candidates holding postgraduate or graduate degrees in specialized branches of history (such as Ancient History or Medieval History) meet the eligibility criteria requiring a degree in “History” for teaching positions. CASE TYPE: Education/Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Teachers with Specialized History Degrees: Indresh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Another Chance to Defend Suit After Ex-Parte Decree: Jersey Developers vs. Canara Bank (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order IX, Ex-parte Decree, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service of summons

Supreme Court Allows Another Chance to Defend Suit After Ex-Parte Decree: Jersey Developers vs. Canara Bank (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an ex-parte decree should be set aside to allow the defendant another opportunity to defend the suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: M/s Jersey Developers (P) Limited & Ors. vs. Canara Bank Judgment Date: 13

Supreme Court Allows Another Chance to Defend Suit After Ex-Parte Decree: Jersey Developers vs. Canara Bank (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top