Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Lok Adalat Jurisdiction: Settlement vs. Merits in Estate Officer vs. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Judges, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 19(5), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 20(3), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 20(5), M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Lok Adalat Jurisdiction: Settlement vs. Merits in Estate Officer vs. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of Lok Adalat jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: Estate Officer vs. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired) [Judgment Date]: October 7, 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Lok Adalat Jurisdiction: Settlement vs. Merits in Estate Officer vs. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (2021) Read Post »

Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court clarifies in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6A, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 23A, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a wife can amend her written statement to include a counterclaim seeking a declaration that her husband’s second marriage is void in a divorce proceeding. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute Case Name: Nitaben Dinesh

Amendment of Pleadings and Counterclaims in Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court clarifies in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 263, Judges, Limitation Period, M. R. Shah, Revision of Assessment Order

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 263 Income Tax Revisions: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the limitation period for revision orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mohammed Meeran

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Delay and Laches, Judges, M. R. Shah, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with Section 91(3), Service Law, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition challenging a termination order should be entertained after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Surji Devi [Judgment Date]: October 7, 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Termination Due to Delay: State of Rajasthan vs. Surji Devi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Recalls Custody Order, Cites Fraud in Child Custody Battle: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 53, Fundamental Rights, Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 10, Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 7, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Recalls Custody Order, Cites Fraud in Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Fraudulent procurement of a child custody order. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Guardianship. Case Name: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra. Judgment Date: 7 October 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 7 October 2021 Citation: Not Available Judges: Uday

Supreme Court Recalls Custody Order, Cites Fraud in Child Custody Battle: Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Limits Government Accommodation for Kashmiri Migrants: Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Supreme Court Limits Government Accommodation for Kashmiri Migrants: Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether retired Kashmiri migrant government employees are entitled to retain government accommodation indefinitely. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Union of India & Anr. vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (D) Through L.Rs. Judgment Date: 7 October 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Limits Government Accommodation for Kashmiri Migrants: Union of India vs. Omkar Nath Dhar (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Promotion, Service Law, Service Law with Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021) Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 688 Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka Can a government employee claim a promotion based solely on the fact that their juniors were promoted

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “illicitly removed” under Kerala Forest Act: Bharath Booshan Aggarwal vs. State of Kerala (2021)

/ Burden of Proof, Criminal Law, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Kerala Forest Act, 1961, Kerala Forest Act, 1961 with Section 2(f), Kerala Forest Act, 1961 with Section 27(1)(d), Kerala Forest Act, 1961 with Section 69, Mens Rea, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court clarifies “illicitly removed” under Kerala Forest Act: Bharath Booshan Aggarwal vs. State of Kerala (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the illicit origin of forest produce for conviction under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Bharath Booshan

Supreme Court clarifies “illicitly removed” under Kerala Forest Act: Bharath Booshan Aggarwal vs. State of Kerala (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies liability of inspection agencies in consumer cases: SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd. (6 October 2021)

/ Burden of Proof, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Contract Law, Deficiency in Service, Disclaimer, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Liability, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies liability of inspection agencies: SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: 6 October 2021 Citation: [Not provided in the document] Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can an inspection agency be held liable for variations in product specifications after the goods have been shipped and

Supreme Court clarifies liability of inspection agencies in consumer cases: SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd. (6 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies criteria for appointment in disciplined forces despite acquittal: Union of India vs. Methu Meda (2021)

/ Appointment, Disciplined Forces, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 347, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 364A, Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies criteria for appointment in disciplined forces despite acquittal: Union of India vs. Methu Meda (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an acquittal in a criminal case, particularly when witnesses turn hostile, automatically entitles a candidate to employment in a disciplined force. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India and Others vs. Methu

Supreme Court clarifies criteria for appointment in disciplined forces despite acquittal: Union of India vs. Methu Meda (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Dues Recovery Despite Billing Error: Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2021)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(g), Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 56, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 17(1)(c), V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Dues Recovery Despite Billing Error: Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: October 5, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 695 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can an electricity company recover dues from a consumer after discovering a billing error, even if it’s been

Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Dues Recovery Despite Billing Error: Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Abetment of Suicide Charges Against Teacher: Geo V Arghese vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Judges, Krishna Murari, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Quashes Abetment of Suicide Charges Against Teacher: Geo V Arghese vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a teacher’s act of reprimanding a student for indiscipline can be considered abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Geo V Arghese vs. The State

Supreme Court Quashes Abetment of Suicide Charges Against Teacher: Geo V Arghese vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top