Judges

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 »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Due to Solitary Confinement and Delay: B.A. Umesh vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 72, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Prisons Act, 1894, Prisons Act, 1894 with Section 29, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Due to Solitary Confinement and Delay: B.A. Umesh vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prolonged solitary confinement and delays in processing a mercy petition can be grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: B.A. Umesh vs. Union of India & Ors.

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Due to Solitary Confinement and Delay: B.A. Umesh vs. Union of India (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 »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: S. Kaleeswaran vs. State (2022) INSC 525

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: S. Kaleeswaran vs. State (2022) INSC 525 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: S. Kaleeswaran vs. State [Judgment Date]: 3 November 2022 Date of the

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: S. Kaleeswaran vs. State (2022) INSC 525 Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Filings and Withdrawals in Numerous Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)

/ Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Filings and Withdrawals in Numerous SLPs LEGAL ISSUE: Procedure for addressing defective filings and withdrawal of cases. CASE TYPE: Civil and Criminal. Case Name: Sarada Vidhyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School vs. The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department & Ors. [Judgment Date]: November 3, 2022 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Filings and Withdrawals in Numerous Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compensation and rehabilitation for land acquisition under Coal Bearing Areas Act: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Mathias Oram (2022) INSC 946 (3 November 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with Section 4(1), Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with Section 7(1), Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with Section 9, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Judges, 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 105, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Third Schedule, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Compensation and Rehabilitation in Mahanadi Coalfields Case LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation and rehabilitation for land acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. Case Name: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mathias Oram & Ors. Judgment Date: 3

Supreme Court clarifies compensation and rehabilitation for land acquisition under Coal Bearing Areas Act: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Mathias Oram (2022) INSC 946 (3 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Imposes Sentence for Contempt in Child Custody Case: In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022)

/ Child Custody, Civil Contempt, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 129, Contempt of Court, Criminal Contempt, Family Law, Guardianship, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Imposes Sentence for Contempt in Child Custody Case: In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Sentencing for Contempt of Court CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court, Family Law Case Name: In Re: Perry Kansagra Judgment Date: 3 November 2022 Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2022 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,

Supreme Court Imposes Sentence for Contempt in Child Custody Case: In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Assessment Procedures for Charitable Trusts: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022)

/ Charitable Trusts, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(15), Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Tax Assessment, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Assessment Procedures for Charitable Trusts: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the application of the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning charitable trusts and general public utility. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Assistant Commissioner

Supreme Court Clarifies Assessment Procedures for Charitable Trusts: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies abatement of suit and its effect on appeals: Maringmei Acham vs. M Maringmei Khuripou (2022)

/ Abatement of Suit, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXII Rule 11, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Order XXII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court clarifies abatement of suit and its effect on appeals: Maringmei Acham vs. M Maringmei Khuripou (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Effect of abatement of a suit on pending appeals arising from interlocutory orders in the suit. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Maringmei Acham vs. M Maringmei Khuripou Judgment Date: 03 November 2022 Date of the

Supreme Court clarifies abatement of suit and its effect on appeals: Maringmei Acham vs. M Maringmei Khuripou (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhagwat Singh (2022)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Law, Lapse of Land Acquisition, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Payment of Compensation, Possession of Land, 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)

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhagwat Singh (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 the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhagwat Singh (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top