Judges

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013: Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishan Lal Arora & Ors. (2022)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Land Acquisition Law with Section 24(2), M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: DDA vs. Krishan Lal Arora (2022) Date of the Judgment: 02 November 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7960 of 2022 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed solely because compensation wasn’t paid […]

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013: Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishan Lal Arora & Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Reporting Duty Under POCSO Act: State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Maroti Pimpalkar (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Constitutional Law with Article 39(f), Judges, Mandatory Reporting, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 19(1), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 21(1)

Supreme Court Upholds Reporting Duty Under POCSO Act: State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Maroti Pimpalkar (2022) Date of the Judgment: November 2, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 1004 Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice C.T. Ravikumar Can a medical practitioner be held liable for not reporting sexual abuse of minor girls, even if they were not the

Supreme Court Upholds Reporting Duty Under POCSO Act: State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Maroti Pimpalkar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Oversee Advocate Verification: Ajay Shankar Srivastava vs. Bar Council of India (2023)

/ Bar Council of India, Bar Council of India Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Act, 1961 with Section 6, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J B Pardiwala, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Oversee Advocate Verification: Ajay Shankar Srivastava vs. Bar Council of India (2023) Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 319 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J. Can the legal profession maintain its integrity when unqualified individuals are practicing law?

Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Oversee Advocate Verification: Ajay Shankar Srivastava vs. Bar Council of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Manpower Supply” and “Programme Producer” under Service Tax Law: International Merchandising Company vs. Commissioner (2022)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Extended Period of Limitation, Finance Act, 1994, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 65(105)(k), Finance Act, 1994 with Section 65(68), Finance Act, 1994 with Section 65(86b), Hima Kohli, Judges, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency, Programme Producer Services, Service Tax

Date of the Judgment: November 1, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 1449 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J. Can a company that hires a celebrity for an event be considered a “manpower supply agency” under service tax laws? What constitutes a “programme producer” when broadcasting rights are sold? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court clarifies “Manpower Supply” and “Programme Producer” under Service Tax Law: International Merchandising Company vs. Commissioner (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Filings and Infructuous Cases: Raghunath Behera vs. State of Odisha (2022)

/ Civil Procedure, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Special Leave Petition

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Filings and Infructuous Cases Date of the Judgment: November 1, 2022 Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha Can a case be dismissed for not rectifying defects even after multiple reminders? The Supreme Court of India recently dealt with a large batch of cases where the filings had defects. This blog post summarizes

Supreme Court Addresses Defective Filings and Infructuous Cases: Raghunath Behera vs. State of Odisha (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition Due to Delay in D. Laxmamma vs. S. Halappa (1 November 2022)

/ Civil Law, Delay in filing, Judges, Limitation Act, Review Petition, Sanjiv Khanna, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in D. Laxmamma vs. S. Halappa LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a review petition can be dismissed due to an unreasonable delay in filing. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: D. Laxmamma vs. S. Halappa and Ors. Judgment Date: 1 November 2022. Introduction Date of the Judgment: 1 November 2022 Citation: Not Available

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition Due to Delay in D. Laxmamma vs. S. Halappa (1 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the overriding effect of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the Arbitration Act, 1996 in disputes: Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (31 October 2022)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 80, Bela M. Trivedi, Dispute Resolution under MSMED Act, Judges, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 18, MSMED Act with Section 24, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act’s Overriding Effect on Arbitration Act in Disputes: Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) override the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when there is an

Supreme Court settles the overriding effect of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the Arbitration Act, 1996 in disputes: Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (31 October 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules Commission Vendors entitled to 50% past service for pension: Union of India vs. Munshi Ram (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. II, 1991, Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. II, 1991 with Rule 2005, Judges, M.R. Shah, Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 with Rule 14, Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 with Rule 31

Supreme Court rules Commission Vendors entitled to 50% past service for pension: Union of India vs. Munshi Ram (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Commission Vendors absorbed into regular railway service are entitled to have 50% of their past service counted towards pension benefits, similar to casual laborers. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Pensionary Benefits) Case Name: Union

Supreme Court rules Commission Vendors entitled to 50% past service for pension: Union of India vs. Munshi Ram (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Rape and Murder Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 with Section 173, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Dying Declaration, Hima Kohli, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 32(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Rape and Murder Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of a dying declaration and its probative value in a criminal trial. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: The State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai Judgment Date: 31 October 2022 Introduction

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Rape and Murder Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Defamation Liability for Editors in News Publications: Aroon Purie vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Defamation, Editor, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 500, Judges, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 with Section 7, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Defamation Liability for Editors in News Publications: Aroon Purie vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the extent of liability for defamation of an Editor-in-Chief of a news publication. CASE TYPE: Criminal Defamation Case Name: Aroon Purie vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Judgment Date: 31 October

Supreme Court Clarifies Defamation Liability for Editors in News Publications: Aroon Purie vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in bribery cases: Directorate of Enforcement vs. Padmanabhan Kishore (31 October 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 2(1)(u), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 3, Proceeds of Crime, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Money Laundering Act in Bribery Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a bribe giver can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for being involved in the process or activity connected with “proceeds of crime” even before the bribe is received by the public servant. CASE TYPE: Criminal

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in bribery cases: Directorate of Enforcement vs. Padmanabhan Kishore (31 October 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fresh bail consideration on medical grounds in PMLA case: Chander Prakash Wadhwa vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (22 October 2022)

/ Bail, Bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Bela M. Trivedi, Criminal Law, Judges, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court directs fresh bail consideration on medical grounds in PMLA case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a fresh bail application can be considered by the Trial Court based on a petitioner’s medical condition after a previous rejection. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) Case Name: Chander Prakash Wadhwa vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Supreme Court directs fresh bail consideration on medical grounds in PMLA case: Chander Prakash Wadhwa vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (22 October 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top