M.R. Shah

Arbitration Process: Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator After Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award in M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (18 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 19, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Sanjiv Khanna, Violation of Natural Justice

Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator in Contract Dispute: M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award should be set aside for violating principles of natural justice and not providing sufficient opportunity to present a case. CASE TYPE: Arbitration. Case Name: M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union […]

Arbitration Process: Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator After Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award in M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (18 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Compassionate Appointment Policy: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi (2021)

/ Compassionate Appointment, Judges, M.R. Shah, Policy for Compassionate Appointment, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment Policy: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of subsequent policies for compassionate appointments. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ashish Awasthi Judgment Date: 18 November 2021 Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2021 Citation: [Not Available in

Supreme Court settles Compassionate Appointment Policy: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021)

/ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 16(2), General Conditions of Contract, Interest in Arbitration, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite and future interest when the contract between the parties expressly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises [Judgment Date]: 18 November

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment After 18-Year Delay: Steel Authority of India vs. Gouri Devi (2021)

/ Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Delay in Application, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment After 18-Year Delay: Steel Authority of India vs. Gouri Devi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second application for compassionate appointment can be considered after a significant delay, especially when a prior application by another family member was rejected. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Steel Authority of India Limited vs.

Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment After 18-Year Delay: Steel Authority of India vs. Gouri Devi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction Order in Property Dispute: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 39, Interim Injunction, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Property Dispute

Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction Order in Property Dispute: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an interim injunction can be granted against third parties claiming rights in a property without impleading them in the suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha &

Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction Order in Property Dispute: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Accounts Officers, favoring direct recruits: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021)

/ Amendment Notification dated 02.01.2010, Direct Recruitment, Equality in Service, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Regulations, Judges, M.R. Shah, Promotion, Regulation dated 01.11.2006, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Accounts Officers, favoring direct recruits: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the requirement of passing the SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer (AO) is valid for direct recruit Assistant Accounts Officers (AAO). CASE TYPE: Service Law, Promotion Dispute

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Accounts Officers, favoring direct recruits: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fresh tenders for Manipur’s Nutrition Program: M/s B.K. Enterprises vs. State of Manipur (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Government Contracts, Judges, M.R. Shah, Tender Law

Supreme Court directs fresh tenders for Manipur’s Nutrition Program: M/s B.K. Enterprises vs. State of Manipur (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can continue contracts for transportation of nutrition supplies without issuing fresh tenders. CASE TYPE: Government Contracts/Tender Law Case Name: M/s B.K. Enterprises vs. The State of Manipur and Another [Judgment Date]: 12

Supreme Court directs fresh tenders for Manipur’s Nutrition Program: M/s B.K. Enterprises vs. State of Manipur (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit (2021)

/ Advocates, B.V. Nagarathna, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Deficiency in Service, Judges, M.R. Shah, Professional Responsibility

Supreme Court Dismisses Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether advocates can be held liable for deficiency in service if their client loses a case on merits. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit and others [Judgment Date]: November 8,

Supreme Court Dismisses Complaint Against Advocates for Deficiency in Service: Nandlal Lohariya vs. Jagdish Chand Purohit (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Corruption Investigation: State of J&K vs. Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman (29 October 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Jammu & Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code, Jammu & Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code with Section 155, Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 with Section 3, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Corruption Investigation: State of J&K vs. Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR is permissible and whether an investigating officer needs a specific, reasoned order to investigate corruption charges. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption Case Name: The State of Jammu & Kashmir

Supreme Court Upholds Corruption Investigation: State of J&K vs. Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman (29 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Deposit and Resolves Dispute in Debt Recovery Case

/ A.S. Bopanna, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Judges, M.R. Shah, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 25

Supreme Court Directs Deposit and Resolves Dispute in Debt Recovery Case LEGAL ISSUE: Dispute over the amount due and payable in a debt recovery case. CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery Case Name: XLO INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS [Judgment Date]: 27 October 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Directs Deposit and Resolves Dispute in Debt Recovery Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, M.R. Shah, Second Appeal, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for specific performance can be dismissed for lack of specific averments of readiness and willingness and whether the discretionary power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be used to deny the

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the power of Magistrates to take cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari (26 October 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 190, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M.R. Shah, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 14

Supreme Court Clarifies Cognizance of Offences under the Atrocities Act: Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when a Special Court is also empowered to do so. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name:

Supreme Court clarifies the power of Magistrates to take cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari (26 October 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top