Judges

Supreme Court overturns Allahabad High Court’s decision on disciplinary proceedings: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajit Singh (22 March 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Departmental Enquiry, Disciplinary Authority, Doctrine of Equality, Doctrine of Equality with Departmental Enquiry, Judges, M.R. Shah, Principles of Natural Justice, Principles of Natural Justice with Departmental Enquiry, Remand, Service Law

Supreme Court overturns Allahabad High Court’s decision on disciplinary proceedings: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajit Singh (2022) Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050 of 2022 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can an employee be exonerated from disciplinary action simply because other employees involved in the […]

Supreme Court overturns Allahabad High Court’s decision on disciplinary proceedings: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajit Singh (22 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies NEET Reservation for Tamil Nadu in Medical Admissions (22 March 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, Education Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Medical Admissions, National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), Reservation Policies, Reservation Policy of Tamil Nadu, State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court Clarifies NEET Reservation for Tamil Nadu in Medical Admissions (22 March 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the implementation of state reservation policies in NEET-based medical admissions for Tamil Nadu. CASE TYPE: Education Law, specifically concerning medical admissions and reservation policies. Case Name: Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court Clarifies NEET Reservation for Tamil Nadu in Medical Admissions (22 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Cryptic Review Order in Service Matter: Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Procedure, Judges, M.R. Shah, Review Jurisdiction, Review of Judgments, Service Law

Supreme Court Sets Aside Cryptic Review Order in Service Matter: Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can allow a review petition without specifying the error apparent on the face of the record. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh

Supreme Court Sets Aside Cryptic Review Order in Service Matter: Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. N. Savitha (2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, Land Acquisition Act with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act with Section 6, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. N. Savitha (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value in land acquisition cases. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. vs. N. Savitha [Judgment Date]: 22 March 2022 Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case: Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. N. Savitha (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Procedure for Investigating POCSO Act Violations in Media: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 155, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 4, Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 19, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 23, Special Court under POCSO Act

Supreme Court Addresses Procedure for Investigating POCSO Act Violations in Media: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applies to the investigation of an offense under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and whether a

Supreme Court Addresses Procedure for Investigating POCSO Act Violations in Media: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs. State of Karnataka (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022)

/ Contract Law, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Judicial Review in Contract Matters, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 41(ha), Tender Process, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can interfere with a tender process and halt an infrastructure project based on minor deviations in bid documents. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Infrastructure Development, Tender Process. Case Name: M/S. N.G. Projects

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Time Bound Promotion eligibility for absorbed employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Antu Patil (2022) INSC 177

/ Absorption, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pay Scale, Service Law, Time Bound Promotion

Supreme Court clarifies Time Bound Promotion eligibility for absorbed employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Antu Patil (2022) INSC 177 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior service on a work-charge basis can be counted for Time Bound Promotion (TBP) after absorption into a new post. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Maharashtra and another

Supreme Court clarifies Time Bound Promotion eligibility for absorbed employees: State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Antu Patil (2022) INSC 177 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022)

/ Amicus Curiae in PIL, Aniruddha Bose, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Public Interest Litigation, Public Interest Litigation with Procedure

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party to a dispute can be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Suresh Srivastava & Ors. vs. Sundeep Bhutoria Judgment Date: March

Supreme Court clarifies PIL procedure in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Corrects Clerical Error in Contempt Judgment: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (21 March 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Clerical Error Correction, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Contempt of Court, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Corrects Judgment on Contempt: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Correction of clerical error in a judgment. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court. Case Name: In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. Judgment Date: 21 March 2022 Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and

Supreme Court Corrects Clerical Error in Contempt Judgment: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds One Rank One Pension Policy with Periodic Revision: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 244

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP), Pension, Service Law, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds One Rank One Pension Policy with Periodic Revision: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 244 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy for ex-servicemen, with revisions at periodic intervals, is constitutionally valid and non-discriminatory. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Pension Case Name: Indian

Supreme Court Upholds One Rank One Pension Policy with Periodic Revision: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 244 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 80, Court Fees Act, 1870, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7, Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(i), Court Fees Act, 1870 with Section 7(iv), Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether ad valorem court fees are payable on the amount claimed in a suit for damages. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: State of Punjab and Others vs. Dev Brat Sharma Judgment Date: 16 March 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Court Fees for Damages Suits: State of Punjab vs. Dev Brat Sharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies power of Magistrate to summon additional accused: Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 177 (16 March 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 190, Cognizance of Offence, Judges, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power to Summon Additional Accused in Criminal Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Can a Magistrate summon a person as an accused, who is not named in the police report or in column 2 of the charge sheet, based on other evidence? CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court clarifies power of Magistrate to summon additional accused: Nahar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 177 (16 March 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top