Judges

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Sale Price’ under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Universal Cylinders Ltd. vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (23 February 2018)

/ Deepak Gupta, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 with Section 2(39), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 with Section 2(44), Sale Price

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Sale Price’ under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Universal Cylinders Ltd. vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ‘sale price’ and ‘turnover’ under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, when the final price is fixed after the provisional price. CASE TYPE: Tax Law. Case Name: M/s. Universal Cylinders Limited vs. The […]

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Sale Price’ under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Universal Cylinders Ltd. vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference in construction contracts: Elite Engineering vs. Techtrans Construction (23 February 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7, Ashok Bhushan, Construction Contracts, Contract Law, Incorporation by reference, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference: Elite Engineering vs. Techtrans Construction (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration clause from a main contract can be incorporated into a sub-contract by reference. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. Elite Engineering and Construction (Hyd.) Private Limited vs. M/S. Techtrans Construction India Private Limited Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference in construction contracts: Elite Engineering vs. Techtrans Construction (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Additional Judges: Sunil Samdaria vs. Union of India (23 February 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 217, Constitutional Law with Article 224, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Additional Judges: Sunil Samdaria vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appointment of Additional Judges for a term less than two years is valid under Article 224 of the Constitution of India, and whether a retired judicial officer is eligible for appointment as an Additional Judge. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Additional Judges: Sunil Samdaria vs. Union of India (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Expansion of Hazira Port Limits: Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2018)

/ Competitive Bidding, Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999, Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981, Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 with Section 35, Indian Ports Act, 1908, Indian Ports Act, 1908 with Section 4, Indian Ports Act, 1908 with Section 5, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Expansion of Hazira Port Limits: Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can alter port limits under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, and if such alteration was done in public interest. CASE TYPE: Port and Infrastructure Law Case Name: Essar Bulk

Supreme Court Upholds Expansion of Hazira Port Limits: Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Ends 20-Year Matrimonial Dispute: Sachin Dhuri vs. Sneha Dhuri (2018)

/ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13B, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Ends 20-Year Matrimonial Dispute: Sachin Dhuri vs. Sneha Dhuri (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Resolution of long-standing matrimonial disputes through mutual consent and settlement. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial/Family Law Case Name: Sachin Dinanath Dhuri vs. Mrs. Sneha Sachin Dhuri Judgment Date: February 22, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2018 Citation: [Not Available in

Supreme Court Ends 20-Year Matrimonial Dispute: Sachin Dhuri vs. Sneha Dhuri (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Not Providing Opportunity to Rebut Additional Evidence in Partition Suit: Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Additional Evidence, Appellate Procedure, Ashok Bhushan, Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, Natural Justice, Order XLI Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Not Providing Opportunity to Rebut Additional Evidence in Partition Suit: Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appellate court must provide an opportunity to the contesting party to rebut or explain additional evidence admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Not Providing Opportunity to Rebut Additional Evidence in Partition Suit: Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay Scale to Pre-1996 Retired Armed Forces Officers: Suchet Singh Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (21 February 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Government Orders, Government Orders with Order dated 07.06.1999, Government Orders with Order dated 14.01.2000, Government Orders with Order dated 21.11.1997, Judges, Pay Scale, Pension, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay Scale to Pre-1996 Retired Armed Forces Officers Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2018 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored the judgment) Can retired armed forces officers who retired before 01.01.1996 claim a higher pay scale based on a government order meant for

Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay Scale to Pre-1996 Retired Armed Forces Officers: Suchet Singh Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (21 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Limits Bar Council’s Review Power in Misconduct Case: Advanta India Ltd. vs. B.N. Shivanna (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 36B, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 48AA, Ashok Bhushan, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Professional Misconduct

Supreme Court Limits Bar Council’s Review Power in Misconduct Case: Advanta India Ltd. vs. B.N. Shivanna (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of review powers of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. CASE TYPE: Professional Misconduct of an Advocate Case Name: M/S. Advanta India Ltd. vs. B.N. Shivanna [Judgment Date]: 21 February 2018 Introduction

Supreme Court Limits Bar Council’s Review Power in Misconduct Case: Advanta India Ltd. vs. B.N. Shivanna (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development: Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors (2018)

/ Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors: Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development Date of the Judgment: February 21, 2018 Citation: Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors, Civil Appeal No(s).2362 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27383 of 2015) Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Amitava Roy, J. Can the government

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development: Delhi Development Authority vs. Munni Lal & Ors (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Appellate Officer under Public Premises Act: LIC vs. Nandini J. Shah (20 February 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Amitava Roy, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Dipak Misra, Judges, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Public Premises Act with Section 10, Public Premises Act with Section 8, Public Premises Act with Section 9

Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Appellate Officer under Public Premises Act: LIC vs. Nandini J. Shah (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata. CASE TYPE: Public Premises Eviction Law Case Name: Life

Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Appellate Officer under Public Premises Act: LIC vs. Nandini J. Shah (20 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Settles Custody Dispute: Sudarsana Rao Gadde vs. Karuna Gadde (2018)

/ Child Custody, Divorce, Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Indian Divorce Act, 1869 with Section 10A, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Matrimonial Law, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Mutual Consent

Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Settles Custody Dispute: Sudarsana Rao Gadde vs. Karuna Gadde (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Granting divorce by mutual consent and settling child custody disputes. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute. Case Name: Sudarsana Rao Gadde vs. Karuna Gadde. [Judgment Date]: February 20, 2018. Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 20, 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Settles Custody Dispute: Sudarsana Rao Gadde vs. Karuna Gadde (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judges, Public Interest, Public Service Commission, Recruitment, Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8, Right to Information Act, 2005, Service Law, Transparency, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing transparency and confidentiality in public examinations under the Right to Information Act, 2005. CASE TYPE: Service Law / Right to Information Case Name: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top