M.R. Shah Archives

Supreme Court Upholds APERC’s Power to Determine Wheeling and Grid Support Charges: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited vs. M/S Rain Calcining Limited & Others (29 November 2019)

November 29, 2019 / Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Law, Judges, M.R. Shah, Regulatory Law, Regulatory Powers, Tariff Determination

Supreme Court Upholds APERC’s Power to Determine Wheeling and Grid Support Charges: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited vs. M/S Rain Calcining Limited & Others (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) has the authority to determine wheeling charges and grid support charges under the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998. […]

Supreme Court clarifies wage calculation for contract laborers: Food Corporation of India vs. Pratap Kundu (29 November 2019)

November 29, 2019 / Ashok Bhushan, Contract Labour, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 24, Contract between FCI and Pratap Kundu, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Labour Law, M.R. Shah, Wage Rates

Supreme Court Clarifies Wage Rates for Contract Laborers: Food Corporation of India vs. Pratap Kundu (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of wage rates for contract laborers and the applicability of a percentage above schedule of rates (ASOR) in a contract. CASE TYPE: Contractual Dispute/Labor Law Case Name: Food Corporation of India vs. Pratap Kundu [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court clarifies wage calculation for contract laborers: Food Corporation of India vs. Pratap Kundu (29 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Prosecution of Municipal Commissioners under the Water Act: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik & Ors. (26 November 2019)

November 26, 2019 / Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 with Section 10, M.R. Shah, Offences by Companies, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 47, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with Section 48

Supreme Court Clarifies Prosecution of Municipal Commissioners under the Water Act: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik & Ors. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Commissioners and Chief Officers of Municipal Councils can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Criminal Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Prosecution of Municipal Commissioners under the Water Act: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik & Ors. (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Orders in Smuggling Case: Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan (2019)

November 22, 2019 / COFEPOSA Act, 1974, COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with Section 13, COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with Section 5-A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 22(5), Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 104, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 108, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Preventive Detention, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Orders in Smuggling Case: Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) is valid when the detenu is already in judicial custody. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Preventive Detention) Case Name: Union of

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Orders in Smuggling Case: Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Halts Construction: Environmental Concerns Trump Development Near Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary (5 November 2019)

November 5, 2019 / Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 48A, Constitution of India with Article 51A(g), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Rule 5(3)(d), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 3(1), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 3(2)(v), Judges, M.R. Shah, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 with Section 26-A

Supreme Court Halts Housing Project Near Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary Date of the Judgment: 5 November 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1151 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., B.R. Gavai, J. (authored by Arun Mishra, J.) Can a housing project be allowed to proceed when it is located a mere 123 meters from a wildlife sanctuary?

Supreme Court Halts Construction: Environmental Concerns Trump Development Near Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary (5 November 2019) Read Post »

Shri Jagannath Temple Administration: Supreme Court Orders Reforms in Temple Management (4 November 2019)

November 4, 2019 / Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Hereditary Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Religious Institutions Law, Religious Institutions Law with Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, S. Ravindra Bhat, Temple Administration

Supreme Court Directs Reforms for Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri (2019) Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 123 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Can a temple’s administration be improved to better serve devotees while preserving its traditions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in

Shri Jagannath Temple Administration: Supreme Court Orders Reforms in Temple Management (4 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revisions under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005

October 25, 2019 / Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with Section 48, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act in Himachal Pradesh VAT Revisions LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can condone delays in filing revisions under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Superintending Engineer/ Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper &

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revisions under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Act: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal (2019)

October 23, 2019 / Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings, 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, S. Ravindra Bhat, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Act: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. Judgment Date: 23 October 2019 Introduction

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Act: Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Order on Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services for CAPFs: Union of India vs. Sri Harananda (2019)

October 18, 2019 / Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Indian Police Service (IPS), Judges, M.R. Shah, Organized Group 'A' Central Services, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Order on Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services for CAPFs: Union of India vs. Sri Harananda (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification of an earlier order regarding the grant of Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and its impact on the deputation rights of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers. CASE

Supreme Court Clarifies Order on Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services for CAPFs: Union of India vs. Sri Harananda (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s I-Ven Interactive Limited (2019)

October 18, 2019 / Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 143(2), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 143(3), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 14A, Income Tax Assessment, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Notice Requirements, Taxation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Notice Requirements under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid if sent to the address available in the PAN database, even if the assessee has changed their address and not updated it with the Income

Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s I-Ven Interactive Limited (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Accelerated Promotion for Degree Holders in Engineering: State of Uttarakhand vs. S.K. Singh (2019)

October 14, 2019 / Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Educational Qualifications, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Promotion, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Accelerated Promotion for Degree Holders in Engineering: State of Uttarakhand vs. S.K. Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether providing accelerated promotion to Junior Engineers (JEs) holding a Degree in Civil Engineering, as opposed to those with a Diploma, is constitutionally valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Promotion Case Name: State of Uttarakhand &

Supreme Court Upholds Accelerated Promotion for Degree Holders in Engineering: State of Uttarakhand vs. S.K. Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Khudkasht Land Rights Under Zamindari Abolition Act: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sabal Singh (2019)

October 14, 2019 / Arun Mishra, Bhumiswami Rights, Judges, Khud-kasht Land, M.R. Shah, Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act, Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act with Section 52, Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act with Section 2(c), Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act with Section 4, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 with Section 158, Rights of Tenants

Supreme Court Clarifies Khudkasht Land Rights Under Zamindari Abolition Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land recorded as ‘Grass’ land in revenue papers before the date of vesting can be considered ‘Khud-kasht’ land of an Ex-Zamindar. CASE TYPE: Land Revenue, Zamindari Abolition Case Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sabal Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Supreme Court Clarifies Khudkasht Land Rights Under Zamindari Abolition Act: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sabal Singh (2019) Read Post »