Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights in Electricity Act Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity vs. Appellate Authority (15 February 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 126, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 127, Electricity Law, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights in Electricity Act Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity vs. Appellate Authority (2018) Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 125 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a consumer be denied the right to appeal against an assessment of unauthorized electricity usage? The Supreme Court of […]

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights in Electricity Act Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity vs. Appellate Authority (15 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the procedure for execution of arbitral awards: Sundaram Finance vs. Abdul Samad (15 February 2018)

/ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(e), Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36(1), Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 42, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 38, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 39, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Execution of Arbitration Awards Across India: Sundaram Finance vs. Abdul Samad (2018) Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 124 Judges: J. Chelameswar, Sanjay Kishan Kaul Can an arbitral award be executed directly in a court where the assets are located, or does it need to be first filed

Supreme Court settles the procedure for execution of arbitral awards: Sundaram Finance vs. Abdul Samad (15 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Right to Fair Inquiry: UCO Bank vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (2018)

/ Deepak Gupta, Departmental Inquiry, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Pension Regulations, Right to Fair Defense, Service Law, UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 with Regulation 20(3)(iii)

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Right to Fair Inquiry: UCO Bank vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether denial of financial resources during a departmental inquiry violates an employee’s right to a fair defense. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla. [Judgment Date]: 15 February 2018 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Right to Fair Inquiry: UCO Bank vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Consumer” Definition for Self-Employment: Paramount Digital Color Lab vs. Agfa India (2018)

/ Commercial Purpose, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Definition of Consumer, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Self-Employment

Supreme Court Clarifies “Consumer” Definition for Self-Employment: Paramount Digital Color Lab vs. Agfa India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person who buys goods for self-employment is a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: M/s. Paramount Digital Color Lab & Ors. Etc. vs. M/s. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. &

Supreme Court Clarifies “Consumer” Definition for Self-Employment: Paramount Digital Color Lab vs. Agfa India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Additional Land to Late Litigant Landowners in Land Acquisition Case

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, 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, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Denies Additional Land to Late Litigant Landowners in Land Acquisition Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether landowners who did not initially challenge land acquisition proceedings are entitled to the same benefits as those who did, specifically regarding the allotment of developed land. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Khatoon & Ors. vs. The State of

Supreme Court Denies Additional Land to Late Litigant Landowners in Land Acquisition Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Assault Case: Naresh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 325, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Assault Case: Naresh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of sentence based on settlement and parity in punishment. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Naresh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment Date: 15 February 2018 Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 123 Judges: Justice

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Assault Case: Naresh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Due to Defective Summons: Auto Cars vs. Trimurti Cargo Movers (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order V Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 27, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Due to Defective Summons: Auto Cars vs. Trimurti Cargo Movers (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an ex-parte decree can be set aside if the summons issued for substituted service does not specify the exact date and time for the defendant’s appearance. CASE TYPE: Civil Procedure Case Name: Auto Cars vs.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Due to Defective Summons: Auto Cars vs. Trimurti Cargo Movers (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 112 (13 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Executive Decisions, Judges, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 112 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a public interest litigation (PIL) be used to settle political scores? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while dismissing petitions alleging

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 112 (13 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Bihar to Consider Employee Absorption After 23 Years of Service

/ Absorption of Employees, Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007, Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007 with Section 3, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law

Supreme Court Directs Bihar to Consider Employee Absorption After 23 Years of Service Date of the Judgment: February 13, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 122 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. What happens to employees when a government body is dissolved? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Bihar

Supreme Court Directs Bihar to Consider Employee Absorption After 23 Years of Service Read Post »

Supreme Court directs appointment under Evictee Scheme: Union of India vs. Acquilina Rose M. (2018)

/ Appointment to Public Service, Evictee Scheme, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Service Law, Service Law with Evictee Scheme

Supreme Court directs appointment under Evictee Scheme: Union of India vs. Acquilina Rose M. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in directing appointment under the Evictee Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Acquilina Rose M. [Judgment Date]: 13 February 2018 Date of the Judgment: 13

Supreme Court directs appointment under Evictee Scheme: Union of India vs. Acquilina Rose M. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Brand Name” Definition in Excise Duty Exemption for Jute Bags: RDB Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018)

/ Brand Name, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Excise Duty Exemption, Judges, Jute Bags, Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities) Act, 1987, Navin Sinha, Public Distribution System, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies “Brand Name” Definition in Excise Duty Exemption for Jute Bags: RDB Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether affixing the name, logo, and particulars of buyers on jute bags constitutes a “brand name” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby disqualifying them from excise duty exemption. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Clarifies “Brand Name” Definition in Excise Duty Exemption for Jute Bags: RDB Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules on Housing for Retired Employees: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Choudhary Tilotama Das & Ors. (12 February 2018)

/ Company Policy, Contract Law, Employee Housing, Judges, Labour Law, Lease Agreements, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Supreme Court on Employee Housing: SAIL vs. Choudhary Tilotama Das (2018) Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 123 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can a company be compelled to provide long-term housing leases to its retired employees? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case

Supreme Court Rules on Housing for Retired Employees: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Choudhary Tilotama Das & Ors. (12 February 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top