Judges

Supreme Court Modifies Eligibility for Higher Judicial Service Exam: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Judges, Judicial Appointments, Judicial Promotions, L. Nageswara Rao, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, Service Law

Supreme Court Modifies Eligibility for Higher Judicial Service Exam: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of eligibility criteria for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). CASE TYPE: Service Law, specifically concerning judicial appointments and promotions. Case Name: All India Judges Association […]

Supreme Court Modifies Eligibility for Higher Judicial Service Exam: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Order: Gyan Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(28C), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 271(1)(c), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 274(2), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Order: Gyan Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Maintainability of appeal before High Court when tax effect is below prescribed limit. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Appeal Case Name: Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain through LR vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I [Judgment Date]: April 19, 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Order: Gyan Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Postal Assistant Fraud: Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 with Rule 3(1)(i), Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 with Rule 3(1)(ii), Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, M.R. Shah, Punishment, Service Law, Service Law with Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Postal Assistant Fraud: Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy (2022) Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 401 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a disciplinary authority’s decision to remove a public servant for serious fraud be overturned by a court based on sympathy?

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Postal Assistant Fraud: Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies CIRP Costs and Workmen’s Dues in Insolvency: Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Sundaresh Bhatt (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 326, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 327, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 36(4), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(13), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies CIRP Costs and Workmen’s Dues in Insolvency: Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of what constitutes “Insolvency Resolution Process Costs” (CIRP costs) and the priority of workmen’s dues during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Sunil Kumar Jain and others vs. Sundaresh

Supreme Court Clarifies CIRP Costs and Workmen’s Dues in Insolvency: Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Karta’s Power to Gift Joint Family Property: K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (2022)

/ Alienation of Property, Hindu Law, Joint Family Property, Judges, Krishna Murari, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 109, Pious Purpose, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Karta’s Power to Gift Joint Family Property: K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Karta (manager) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) can gift ancestral property to a non-coparcener out of love and affection. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Rights Case Name: K.C. Laxmana vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Karta’s Power to Gift Joint Family Property: K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards: Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 19

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 434 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a company challenge an arbitration award against it without depositing 75% of the awarded amount? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, clarified that

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards: Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed GST refunds: Union of India vs. Willowood Chemicals & Saraf Natural Stone (2022)

/ Goods and Services Tax Act, Goods and Services Tax Act with Section 56, GST Refunds, Interest on Delayed Refunds, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Tax Law, Tax Litigation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed GST refunds: Union of India vs. Willowood Chemicals & Saraf Natural Stone (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct rate of interest applicable on delayed Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds. CASE TYPE: Tax Law (Goods and Services Tax) Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s. Willowood Chemicals

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed GST refunds: Union of India vs. Willowood Chemicals & Saraf Natural Stone (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment for Delayed Reasoning in Murder Case

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 437A, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Judges, Judgment, Judicial Review, M. R. Shah, Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment for Delayed Reasoning in Murder Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court judgment can be set aside for pronouncing the operative part of the order without a reasoned judgment. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Indrajeet Yadav vs. Santosh Singh and Anr. Judgment Date: April 19, 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment for Delayed Reasoning in Murder Case Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances compensation for land acquisition in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation case (19 April 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, M.R. Shah, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 with Section 32(2), Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 with Section 34

Supreme Court enhances compensation for land acquisition in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation case Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2022 Citation: [Not Available in the provided text] Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. When land is acquired for industrial development, how should the compensation be calculated? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court enhances compensation for land acquisition in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation case (19 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Remand Due to Inadequate First Appeal Review: Nemai Chandra Dey vs. Prasanta Chandra (2022)

/ Appellate Review, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 31, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Orders Remand Due to Inadequate First Appeal Review: Nemai Chandra Dey vs. Prasanta Chandra (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The duty of the first appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and provide reasoned findings. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: Nemai Chandra Dey (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Prasanta Chandra (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Orders Remand Due to Inadequate First Appeal Review: Nemai Chandra Dey vs. Prasanta Chandra (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022)

/ Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr.

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape and Murder Case: Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

/ Aggravated Sexual Assault, Bela M. Trivedi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fair Trial, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 6, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape and Murder Case: Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a case of child rape and murder, and whether the death penalty

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape and Murder Case: Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top