Judges Archives

Specific Performance and Public Policy: Supreme Court on Enforceability of Sale Agreements: G.T. Girish vs. Y. Subba Raju (2022) INSC 380 (18 January 2022)

Supreme Court on Specific Performance of Sale Agreements and Public Policy Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 380 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can a contract that appears to violate public policy be enforced? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a case concerning the specific performance […]

Specific Performance and Public Policy: Supreme Court on Enforceability of Sale Agreements: G.T. Girish vs. Y. Subba Raju (2022) INSC 380 (18 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Limited vs. Union of India (2022)

January 18, 2022 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 30, Arbitration Law with Section 33, Hima Kohli, Judges, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Limited vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view, especially on issues of contract termination and compensation for idle machinery.

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Contract Termination and Idle Hire Charges: Atlanta Limited vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on Enforceability of Agreements Violating Bangalore Development Authority Rules: G.T. Girish vs. Y. Subba Raju (2022) INSC 512 (18 January 2022)

January 18, 2022 / Agreements Void, City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 with Section 24, City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 with Section 29, Doctrine of lis pendens, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52

Supreme Court on Enforceability of Agreements Violating Bangalore Development Authority Rules Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 512 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can an agreement to sell, which violates the rules of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), be enforced? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, examining

Supreme Court rules on Enforceability of Agreements Violating Bangalore Development Authority Rules: G.T. Girish vs. Y. Subba Raju (2022) INSC 512 (18 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022)

January 18, 2022 / Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Insolvency Resolution Process, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 concerning the eligibility of a resolution applicant who has provided a guarantee to a creditor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Supreme Court clarifies ineligibility under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022)

January 18, 2022 / Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with Section 13(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022 The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed a critical question regarding the eligibility of resolution applicants under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Specifically, the court examined whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility Under Section 29A(h) of IBC: Bank of Baroda vs. MBL Infrastructures (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interim mining permissions in Bihar: State of Bihar vs. Pawan Kumar (2022)

January 18, 2022 / B.R. Gavai, Environmental Clearances, Environmental Law, Interim Orders, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Mining Law, National Green Tribunal, Supreme Court Orders

Supreme Court clarifies interim mining permissions in Bihar: State of Bihar vs. Pawan Kumar (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on interim arrangements for mining permissions during the pendency of environmental clearances. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Mining Law Case Name: The State of Bihar and Others vs. Pawan Kumar and Others [Judgment Date]: 18 January 2022 Date

Supreme Court clarifies interim mining permissions in Bihar: State of Bihar vs. Pawan Kumar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal for Re-evaluation: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022)

January 18, 2022 / Appeals, B. V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 378, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 323, Indian Penal Code with Section 325, Indian Penal Code with Section 452, Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal for Re-evaluation: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Proper procedure for High Courts when dealing with appeals against acquittals. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 18 January 2022 Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022 Citation: Criminal

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal for Re-evaluation: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal for Re-evaluation: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022)

January 18, 2022 / B. V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 325, Judges, M. R. Shah, Offences Against Body

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal for Re-evaluation: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Proper procedure for High Courts when dealing with appeals against acquittals in criminal cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 18 January 2022 Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022

Supreme Court Remands Criminal Appeal for Re-evaluation: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Bihar in Contempt for Non-Compliance in Pension Case (18 January 2022)

January 18, 2022 / B.R. Gavai, Contempt of Court, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Non-Compliance of Court Orders, Pensionary Benefits, Retiral Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Holds Bihar in Contempt for Non-Compliance in Pension Case (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Contempt of Court for non-compliance of orders regarding pensionary benefits. CASE TYPE: Contempt Jurisdiction. Case Name: Bijay Kumar Sinha and Others vs. Tripurari Sharan and Others. Judgment Date: 18 January 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022 Citation: Contempt

Supreme Court Holds Bihar in Contempt for Non-Compliance in Pension Case (18 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of overt act: Mukesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

January 18, 2022 / B. V. Nagarathna, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M. R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of overt act: Mukesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, without any overt act being attributed to them in a murder case. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of overt act: Mukesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022)

January 18, 2022 / Appointment of Government Employees, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, M.R. Shah, No Objection Certificate, Recruitment Process, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate should be denied appointment due to a delay in the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by their employer, when the candidate applied for the NOC well in time and was otherwise meritorious. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022)

January 18, 2022 / Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Law with No Objection Certificate

Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate should be denied appointment due to the employer’s delay in issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), despite the candidate applying on time and being more meritorious than the selected candidate. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022) Read Post »