Judges

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018)

/ Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: IBI Consultancy India Private Limited vs. DSC Limited [Judgment Date]: April 16, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation: […]

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Compensation: Mohammad Yusuf vs. State of Haryana (2018)

/ Compensation, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23, Market Value, R.K. Agrawal, Right to Property, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Land Compensation: Mohammad Yusuf vs. State of Haryana (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 337 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J and S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can the government acquire land for public purposes without providing adequate compensation to the landowners? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Upholds Land Compensation: Mohammad Yusuf vs. State of Haryana (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Navaneethakrishnan vs. State (2018) INSC 330 (16 April 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence Date of the Judgment: 16 April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 330 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and R.K. Agrawal, J. Can a conviction be upheld when based primarily on circumstantial evidence and a retracted confession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Navaneethakrishnan vs. State (2018) INSC 330 (16 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Retrenchment Rules: Mohd. Ali vs. State of H.P. (2018)

/ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25F, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Retrenchment Rules: Mohd. Ali vs. State of H.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a casual laborer is entitled to retrenchment benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if they have not worked for 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding their termination. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name: Mohd.

Supreme Court Upholds Retrenchment Rules: Mohd. Ali vs. State of H.P. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances land acquisition compensation in Manimegalai vs. The Special Tahsildar case (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Fair Compensation, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court enhances land acquisition compensation in Manimegalai vs. The Special Tahsildar case (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Manimegalai vs. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) Adi Dravidar Welfare. Judgment Date: April 16, 2018 Date of the

Supreme Court enhances land acquisition compensation in Manimegalai vs. The Special Tahsildar case (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on family property rights: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289

/ Arun Mishra, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 with Section 2(a), Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 with Section 4, Family Property, Judges, Property Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Rules on Family Property Dispute: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289 Date of the Judgment: 16th April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 289 Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Can a property acquired in the name of one family member be considered family property, even if other family

Supreme Court rules on family property rights: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289 Read Post »

Coconut Oil Classification: Supreme Court Divided on Excise Duty for Small Packaging (April 13, 2018)

/ Central Excise, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 1513, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 3305, Central Excise with Chapter 15, Central Excise with Chapter 33, Classification of Goods, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Coconut Oil Classification: Supreme Court Divided on Excise Duty LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of coconut oil for excise duty purposes based on packaging size. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: April 13, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 13, 2018 Citation: Not

Coconut Oil Classification: Supreme Court Divided on Excise Duty for Small Packaging (April 13, 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Restrictions on Unqualified Traditional Medicine Practitioners: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs. State of Kerala (2018)

/ Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 with Section 17, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R.K. Agrawal, Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 with Section 23, Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 with Section 38

Supreme Court Upholds Restrictions on Unqualified Traditional Medicine Practitioners: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs. State of Kerala (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether individuals lacking formal qualifications and registration can practice traditional medicine as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’. CASE TYPE: Regulatory Law/Health Law Case Name: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs. State of Kerala and Others [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Upholds Restrictions on Unqualified Traditional Medicine Practitioners: Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs. State of Kerala (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC’s Selection Process for IPS: Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 320, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, Promotion, Selection Process, Service Law, Service Law with IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Regulation 5

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC’s Selection Process for IPS: Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and High Court can reassess the merit of candidates already assessed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Selection Committee for promotions to the Indian Police Service (IPS). CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Upholds UPSC’s Selection Process for IPS: Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya (2018) Read Post »

Coconut Oil Classification Under Excise Law: Supreme Court Divided on Edible vs. Hair Oil (13 April 2018)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 1513, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 3305, General Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule to the Tariff Act, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Coconut Oil Classification Under Excise Law: Supreme Court Divided on Edible vs. Hair Oil Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2018 The Supreme Court of India grappled with a seemingly simple question: Should coconut oil in small packages be classified as an edible oil or a hair oil for excise duty purposes? This seemingly straightforward

Coconut Oil Classification Under Excise Law: Supreme Court Divided on Edible vs. Hair Oil (13 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Umpire’s Role in Arbitration: Oswal Woollen Mills vs. Oswal Agro Mills (2018)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Schedule 1, Article 4, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 3, Arbitration Law, De Novo Hearing, Judges, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal, Umpire's Role in Arbitration

Supreme Court Clarifies Umpire’s Role in Arbitration: Oswal Woollen Mills vs. Oswal Agro Mills (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of an Umpire’s role and the meaning of “de novo” hearing in arbitration proceedings when arbitrators disagree. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [Judgment Date]: April

Supreme Court Clarifies Umpire’s Role in Arbitration: Oswal Woollen Mills vs. Oswal Agro Mills (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes defamation case against K.K. Mishra: A case of misuse of Section 199(2) CrPC

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 199(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 499, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Offences Relating to Defamation, Public Prosecutor, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court quashes defamation case against K.K. Mishra: A case of misuse of Section 199(2) CrPC LEGAL ISSUE: Whether statements made against a public servant are connected to their public duties for a defamation case under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: K.K. Mishra vs. The State

Supreme Court quashes defamation case against K.K. Mishra: A case of misuse of Section 199(2) CrPC Read Post »

Scroll to Top