M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Mandates Pension for SBI Employees with 15 Years Service Under VRS 2000 Scheme: Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2 March 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2020 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, and Justice B.R. Gavai Can a public sector bank deny pension benefits to employees who opted for voluntary retirement after completing 15 years of service, as per […]

Supreme Court Mandates Pension for SBI Employees with 15 Years Service Under VRS 2000 Scheme: Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order on Consent Decree Execution in Family Dispute: Pawan Kumar Arya vs. Ravi Kumar Arya (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 21 Rule 34, Execution of Decree, Family Dispute, Family Law, Family Settlement, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order on Consent Decree Execution in Family Dispute: Pawan Kumar Arya vs. Ravi Kumar Arya (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a part of a consent decree, specifically the allotment of properties, can be executed independently when the decree also mandates a further supplementary agreement between the parties. CASE TYPE: Civil, Family

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order on Consent Decree Execution in Family Dispute: Pawan Kumar Arya vs. Ravi Kumar Arya (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court: Co-accused has no right to be heard in further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (2 March 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173(8), Further Investigation, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body, Rights of Accused

Supreme Court: Co-accused has no right to be heard in further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a co-accused has the right to be heard in proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of

Supreme Court: Co-accused has no right to be heard in further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (2 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds DRT Decree, Dismisses Civil Suits Challenging it: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal (2020)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 with Section 18, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 with Section 20, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds DRT Decree, Dismisses Civil Suits Challenging it: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to challenge orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery/Civil. Case Name: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal and others. Judgment Date: 28 February 2020 Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2020

Supreme Court Upholds DRT Decree, Dismisses Civil Suits Challenging it: Canara Bank vs. P. Selathal (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds MSEB’s Authority on Captive Power Plant Policy Before MERC’s Formation: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (28 February 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 with Section 22(2), Electricity Supply Act, 1948, Electricity Supply Act, 1948 with Section 44, Electricity Supply Act, 1948 with Section 49, Electricity Supply Act, 1948 with Section 79(j), Judges, M.R. Shah, Powers of Regulatory Bodies

Supreme Court Upholds MSEB’s Authority on Captive Power Plant Policy Before MERC’s Formation Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2020 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 2007 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can a regulatory body invalidate policy decisions made by a state electricity board before the body’s own establishment?

Supreme Court Upholds MSEB’s Authority on Captive Power Plant Policy Before MERC’s Formation: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (28 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Second Marriage During Appeal of Divorce Decree: Krishnaveni Rai vs. Pankaj Rai (2020) INSC 191 (19 February 2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 125, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 5, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Second Marriage During Appeal of Divorce Decree Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 191 Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and M.R. Shah, J. Can a second marriage be considered void if it takes place while an appeal against a divorce decree is pending? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Second Marriage During Appeal of Divorce Decree: Krishnaveni Rai vs. Pankaj Rai (2020) INSC 191 (19 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses appeal in securities matter: CAB Securities vs. NSE (2020)

/ Appeals, Arun Mishra, Civil Procedure, Judges, M.R. Shah, Securities Appellate Tribunal, Securities Law

Supreme Court dismisses appeal in securities matter: CAB Securities vs. NSE (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s order warrants interference by the Supreme Court. CASE TYPE: Securities Law Case Name: CAB Securities Limited vs. National Stock Exchange of India Limited Judgment Date: 17 February 2020 Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2020 Citation:

Supreme Court dismisses appeal in securities matter: CAB Securities vs. NSE (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns rape conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix: Santosh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 450, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court overturns rape conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix: Santosh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix when medical and other evidence do not support her claims. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar

Supreme Court overturns rape conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix: Santosh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2020) Read Post »

U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Employee Service Conditions: Supreme Court Refers to Larger Bench (10 February 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 162, Judges, M.R. Shah, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 with Section 15, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 with Section 8, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 with Section 95

Supreme Court Refers U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Service Condition Dispute to Larger Bench Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2020 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and M.R. Shah, J. Can a state government control the service conditions of employees of a housing board? The Supreme Court of India has referred this crucial question to a

U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Employee Service Conditions: Supreme Court Refers to Larger Bench (10 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao (2020)

/ Agreement to Sell, Contract Law, Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963, Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963, Arun Mishra, Contract Law, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was barred by limitation. CASE TYPE: Civil (Specific Performance) Case Name: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam & another vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao Judgment Date: 06 February 2020

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Vundavalli Ratna Manikyam vs. V.P.P.R.N. Prasada Rao (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Requirements for Compromise Decrees in Property Disputes: Mohammade Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020)

/ Adverse Possession, Ashok Bhushan, Compromise Decree, Immovable Property, Judges, M.R. Shah, Property Law, Registration Act, 1908, Registration Act, 1908 with Section 17, Registration of Documents

Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Requirements for Compromise Decrees in Property Disputes: Mohammade Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a compromise decree regarding property that is the subject matter of a suit requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. vs. Rajkumar

Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Requirements for Compromise Decrees in Property Disputes: Mohammade Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against directors for alleged supply of substandard materials: Sushil Sethi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2020) INSC 79 (31 January 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Directors in Substandard Material Supply Case Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 79 Judges: Ashok Bhushan J., M.R. Shah J. Can directors of a company be held criminally liable for alleged substandard supplies made by their company, even when the company itself is not an

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against directors for alleged supply of substandard materials: Sushil Sethi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2020) INSC 79 (31 January 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top