Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022)

/ Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 36(1), Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to land acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022)

/ Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 36(1), Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Legislation by Incorporation, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (2022) Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 782 Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquire land using the old Land Acquisition Act of

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority: Bangalore Development Authority vs. State of Karnataka (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles reservation for OBC in NEET All India Quota seats, defers decision on EWS criteria: Neil Aurelio Nunes vs. Union of India (20 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, All India Quota, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, NEET, Reservations in Education

Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in NEET AIQ Seats, Defers EWS Criteria Decision (20 January 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The legal principle addressed in this judgment is the validity of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in the All India Quota (AIQ) seats for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and the criteria for determining Economically

Supreme Court settles reservation for OBC in NEET All India Quota seats, defers decision on EWS criteria: Neil Aurelio Nunes vs. Union of India (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Inheritance Rights of Daughters in Self-Acquired Property: Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy (20 January 2022)

/ Hindu Law, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 14, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 15, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 16, Judges, Krishna Murari, Mitakshara Law, S. Abdul Nazeer, Self-Acquired Property, Survivorship

Supreme Court Settles Inheritance Rights of Daughters in Self-Acquired Property: Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Inheritance rights of daughters in the self-acquired property of their father under Hindu Law. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Law, Inheritance Law Case Name: Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Ponnusamy and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 20 January 2022

Supreme Court Settles Inheritance Rights of Daughters in Self-Acquired Property: Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles promotion criteria: ESIC Regulations prevail over DACP Scheme (January 20, 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 17, Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 97, Judges, Promotion, Service Law, Service Regulations

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in Promotions LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme or the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Recruitment Regulations govern the promotion of Assistant Professors to Associate Professors. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India

Supreme Court settles promotion criteria: ESIC Regulations prevail over DACP Scheme (January 20, 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. KK Rathinavel (20 January 2022)

/ AS Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. KK Rathinavel (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract demonstrated continuous “readiness and willingness” to fulfill their obligations under the contract. CASE TYPE: Civil – Specific Performance of Contract Case Name: Shenbagam & Ors.

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance in Property Sale Dispute: Shenbagam & Ors. vs. KK Rathinavel (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority

/ Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 with Section 36, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11-A, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquisitions made by the Bangalore Development Authority. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Bangalore Development Authority &

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to Bangalore Development Authority Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of DRI officers under Customs Act: Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Suncity Strips and Tubes P Ltd (20 January 2022)

/ Bela M Trivedi, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 6, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Jurisdiction of Customs Officers

Customs Officer’s Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Suncity Strips Case (2022) Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No of 2022 [Diary No 7082/2020] Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Bela M Trivedi, J. Can an officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiate proceedings under the Customs Act,

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of DRI officers under Customs Act: Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Suncity Strips and Tubes P Ltd (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in NEET AIQ Seats; Defers EWS Criteria Decision (20 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in NEET AIQ Seats; Defers EWS Criteria Decision (20 January 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation and criteria for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in All India Quota (AIQ) seats for medical admissions. CASE TYPE: Education/Reservation Case Name: Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors. vs. Union of India

Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in NEET AIQ Seats; Defers EWS Criteria Decision (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Bank Employee’s Fraud and Misconduct: Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022)

/ Disciplinary Proceedings, Dismissal of Employee, Evidence Act, 1872, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Section 45, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 73, Evidence Act, 1872, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Bank Employee’s Fraud and Misconduct: Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a bank employee’s dismissal for fraud and misconduct was justified. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disciplinary Proceedings. Case Name: Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava. [Judgment Date]: 19 January 2022 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Bank Employee’s Fraud and Misconduct: Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bank’s Dismissal of Employee for Fraud and Forgery: Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022)

/ Banking Law, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 226, Disciplinary Proceedings, Forgery, Fraud, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 47, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Bank’s Dismissal of Employee for Fraud and Forgery: Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 49 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a bank employee be dismissed for forging signatures and misappropriating funds, even if a

Supreme Court Upholds Bank’s Dismissal of Employee for Fraud and Forgery: Indian Overseas Bank vs. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Additional Compensation in Land Acquisition Cases: Ambalal Babulal Patel vs. ONGC (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23(1)(A)

Supreme Court Restores Additional Compensation in Land Acquisition Cases: Ambalal Babulal Patel vs. ONGC (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the additional compensation awarded by the Reference Court in land acquisition cases. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Ambalal Babulal Patel ETC. ETC. vs. The Group General Manager, ONGC &

Supreme Court Restores Additional Compensation in Land Acquisition Cases: Ambalal Babulal Patel vs. ONGC (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top