Judges

Supreme Court Remands Case on Technical Assistant Appointment: Biju K.K. vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology (2022)

/ Appointment, B.V. Nagarathna, Daily Wager, Eligibility Criteria, Judges, Judicial Review, M.R. Shah, Service Law

Supreme Court Remands Case on Technical Assistant Appointment: Biju K.K. vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Selection Committee’s decision on awarding marks for experience can be challenged when prior service as a daily wager is ignored, and whether a candidate met the eligibility criteria for a Technical Assistant position. […]

Supreme Court Remands Case on Technical Assistant Appointment: Biju K.K. vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Circumstantial Evidence: Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara vs. State of Gujarat (2022) INSC 644 (11 July 2022)

/ Attempt to Murder, B.V. Nagarathna, Criminal Law, Evidence, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 328, Judges, M. R. Shah, Murder

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Circumstantial Evidence LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused for murder can be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness who provided inconsistent statements, along with circumstantial evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara vs. State of

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony and Circumstantial Evidence: Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara vs. State of Gujarat (2022) INSC 644 (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Avitel in Contempt for Not Maintaining USD 60 Million Balance: HSBC PI Holdings vs. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 129, Contempt of Court, Contempt of Courts Act, Contempt of Courts Act with willful disobedience, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Holds Avitel in Contempt for Not Maintaining USD 60 Million Balance: HSBC PI Holdings vs. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-compliance with a court order to maintain a specific bank balance constitutes contempt of court, even if the order is executable through other means. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court Case Name:

Supreme Court Holds Avitel in Contempt for Not Maintaining USD 60 Million Balance: HSBC PI Holdings vs. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns quashing of criminal proceedings in missing beer truck case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhil Sharda (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court overturns quashing of criminal proceedings in missing beer truck case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhil Sharda (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) without conducting a full trial and appreciating the larger conspiracy involved in the

Supreme Court overturns quashing of criminal proceedings in missing beer truck case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhil Sharda (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Milind Judgment in Employment Cases: Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Mahesh Kumar (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Reservation Policy, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Scheduled Tribes, Service Law, Service Law: Employment, Service Law: Termination

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Milind Judgment in Employment Cases: Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Mahesh Kumar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the ratio of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, which protected certain appointments made under the Scheduled Tribe category, can be indiscriminately applied to employment cases where a false caste certificate was used to secure a

Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Milind Judgment in Employment Cases: Bhilai Steel Plant vs. Mahesh Kumar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Consulting Engineer Under Finance Act, 1994: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation (2022)

/ Finance Act, 1994, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 65(31), Finance Act, 1994 with Section 66, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 68, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 3(42), Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Consulting Engineer Under Finance Act, 1994: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation (2022) Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4928 of 2018 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can a “body corporate” be considered a “consulting engineer” under

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Consulting Engineer Under Finance Act, 1994: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim in Arbitration Despite Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause: National Highway Authority of India vs. Transstroy (India) Limited (2022) INSC 603 (11 July 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 23, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim in Arbitration Despite Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 603 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can a party be barred from filing a counterclaim in arbitration if they haven’t followed a pre-arbitration conciliation process, even if the main dispute is

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim in Arbitration Despite Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause: National Highway Authority of India vs. Transstroy (India) Limited (2022) INSC 603 (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder and Robbery Case Due to Lack of Identification: Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Criminal Law, Identification of Accused, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 392, Judges, M. R. Shah, Murder, Robbery

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder and Robbery Case Due to Lack of Identification: Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a witness’s identification of the accused in court, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), and when the witness did not

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder and Robbery Case Due to Lack of Identification: Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court defers decision on corruption case pending larger bench ruling: State of Kerala vs. M. Karunakaran (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7

Supreme Court defers decision on corruption case pending larger bench ruling: State of Kerala vs. M. Karunakaran (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence of demand for illegal gratification. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Corruption) Case Name: The State

Supreme Court defers decision on corruption case pending larger bench ruling: State of Kerala vs. M. Karunakaran (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Calculation of Aeronautical Tariffs, Upholds Regulatory Authority’s Decision: Delhi International Airport Ltd. vs. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India & Ors. (2022) INSC 618 (11 July 2022)

/ Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 with Section 22A, Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008, Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 with Section 13, Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 with Section 2(a), Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Calculation of Aeronautical Tariffs, Upholds Regulatory Authority’s Decision Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 618 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed a complex dispute regarding the calculation of aeronautical tariffs at major airports. The core issue revolved around how certain

Supreme Court Clarifies Calculation of Aeronautical Tariffs, Upholds Regulatory Authority’s Decision: Delhi International Airport Ltd. vs. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India & Ors. (2022) INSC 618 (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Education Facilitator Not Liable for Policy Change: HCMI Education vs. Narendra Pal Singh (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 27A, Judges, M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court Holds Education Facilitator Not Liable for Policy Change: HCMI Education vs. Narendra Pal Singh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an education facilitator can be held liable for a policy change made by a foreign government that affects students admitted through the facilitator. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: HCMI Education vs. Narendra Pal Singh

Supreme Court Holds Education Facilitator Not Liable for Policy Change: HCMI Education vs. Narendra Pal Singh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Regulation 10 of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997: SEBI vs. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors (2022) INSC 608 (11 July 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Interpretation of Acquirer, Judges, Powers of SEBI, Sanjiv Khanna, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 with Regulation 10, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 with Regulation 11(1), Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15H

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Regulation 10 of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997: SEBI vs. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors (2022) INSC 608 (11 July 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Regulation 10 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, and the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Regulation 10 of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997: SEBI vs. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors (2022) INSC 608 (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top