Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 4, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(21), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Memorandum of Association, Operational Creditor, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party that receives goods or services can be considered an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs. […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2022)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 173(2), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 33, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2022) Date of the Judgment: February 04, 2022 Citation: Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 97 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a conviction be upheld when a key witness turns hostile

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Rajesh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Labour Court’s Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Wage Dispute: M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. (04 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 33(C)(2), Judges, Labour Court Jurisdiction, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Labour Court’s Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act Date of the Judgment: 04 February 2022 Citation: M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. (2022) INSC 117 Judges: M. R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a Labour Court decide on a wage dispute under Section 33(C)(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Labour Court’s Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Wage Dispute: M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr. (04 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits Parsi funeral rites during COVID-19: Surat Parsi Panchayat Board vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Public Health, Surya Kant

Supreme Court permits Parsi funeral rites during COVID-19: Surat Parsi Panchayat Board vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing religious freedom with public health concerns during a pandemic. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law/Religious Rights Case Name: The Surat Parsi Panchayat Board and Another vs. Union of India and Others Judgment Date: 4 February 2022 Date

Supreme Court permits Parsi funeral rites during COVID-19: Surat Parsi Panchayat Board vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Eligibility Criteria, Government Schemes, Judges, Pension Law, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Eligibility for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, specifically concerning the requirement of being an underground freedom fighter. CASE TYPE: Pension Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi &

Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. Yunus & Ors. (03 February 2022)

/ Judges, K.M. Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 28A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 20, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 21, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Clarifies: Lok Adalat Awards Cannot Trigger Land Compensation Redetermination Under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can be the basis for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,

Supreme Court settles the applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. Yunus & Ors. (03 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Identification Evidence: Surya Vir vs. State of Haryana (2022)

/ Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Identification Evidence (2022) Date of the Judgment: 3 February 2022 Citation: Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.951 of 2022) (@ Diary No(s).19963 of 2020) Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can a conviction be sustained solely

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Identification Evidence: Surya Vir vs. State of Haryana (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 20, Grounds for Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 15, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even when one party does not consent, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Family Courts Act. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law, Family Law Case Name: N.Rajendran

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against bona fide purchasers in property fraud case: Rekha Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 123 (03 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Related to Property

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Bona Fide Purchasers in Property Fraud Case Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 123 Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna Can a person be subjected to criminal proceedings for purchasing a property, without any knowledge of the property being attached? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against bona fide purchasers in property fraud case: Rekha Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 123 (03 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Deficiency of Service: IndusInd Bank vs. Simarjit Singh (2022)

/ Civil Law, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, D.Y. Chandrachud, Damages, Deficiency of Service, Deficiency of Service, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Deficiency of Service: IndusInd Bank vs. Simarjit Singh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was correct in upholding the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (SCDRC) order regarding the valuation of timber in a deficiency of service case. CASE TYPE: Consumer Case Name: IndusInd Bank

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Deficiency of Service: IndusInd Bank vs. Simarjit Singh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State Commission’s Authority in Power Purchase Agreements: Southern Power Distribution Company Limited vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited (2022)

/ Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 with Section 21, B.R. Gavai, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86(1)(b), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds State Commission’s Authority in Power Purchase Agreements: Southern Power Distribution Company Limited vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited (2022) Date of the Judgment: February 2, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 101 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J. Can a power distribution company withdraw from a power purchase agreement (PPA) after

Supreme Court Upholds State Commission’s Authority in Power Purchase Agreements: Southern Power Distribution Company Limited vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Power Purchase Agreement: Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. (2 February 2022)

/ Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 with Section 21, B.R. Gavai, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86(1)(b), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Upholds Power Purchase Agreement: Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Distribution Company can withdraw from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) after initially agreeing to it and after the power plant has become operational. CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Contract Law, Regulatory Law. Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Power Purchase Agreement: Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. (2 February 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top