Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Fine, Sets Aside Demolition Order in Coastal Zone Dispute: Kerala State Coastal Management Authority vs. DLF Universal Limited (2018)

/ Coastal Regulation Zone, Coastal Regulation Zone Norms, Coastal Regulation Zone with CRZ II, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Protection Act, 1986 with Section 3, Environment Protection Rules, 1986, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Fine, Sets Aside Demolition Order in Coastal Zone Dispute: Kerala State Coastal Management Authority vs. DLF Universal Limited (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a building constructed in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms should be demolished or if a fine can be imposed for regularization. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Coastal Regulation Case […]

Supreme Court Upholds Fine, Sets Aside Demolition Order in Coastal Zone Dispute: Kerala State Coastal Management Authority vs. DLF Universal Limited (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies National Anthem Order in Cinema Halls: Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 51A, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Duties, Judges, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 with Section 2, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 with Section 3

Supreme Court Modifies National Anthem Order in Cinema Halls: Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls before the screening of feature films should be mandatory. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India & Others Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Modifies National Anthem Order in Cinema Halls: Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Fraudulent Enrolment in Army: Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Army Act, 1950, Army Act, 1950 with Section 122, Army Act, 1950 with Section 20, Army Rules, 1954, Ashok Bhushan, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Fraudulent Enrolment in Army: Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether dismissal under Section 20(3) of the Army Act, 1950 is valid when a specific provision under Section 122(4) of the same Act exists for fraudulent enrolment. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Ex

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Fraudulent Enrolment in Army: Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even if they were acquitted, and whether courts can substitute their views for the committee’s decision. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Police Recruitment, R. Banumathi, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even after acquittal, for the post of constable in the police force. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Criminal

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Screening Committee can deny appointment to candidates with a criminal history, despite acquittal, for the post of constable. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interest on Revised Pay Scale: State of UP vs. Israr Ahmad (2018)

/ Amitava Roy, Interest on Pay Scale, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Pay Scale, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J. Can a state be compelled to pay interest on revised pay scales? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the State of Uttar Pradesh and its employees. The core issue revolved

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interest on Revised Pay Scale: State of UP vs. Israr Ahmad (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a police force reject candidates for a constable

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12

/ Arun Mishra, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXII, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 with Section 4, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Suits by or Against Minors

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an elder brother can act as the ‘next friend’ of his minor brother in a property dispute case, when their father, the natural guardian, has conflicting interests. CASE TYPE: Civil Property

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018)

/ Burden of Proof, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence of murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar. [Judgment Date]: January 8,

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 465, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Date of the Judgment: January 5, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a High Court quash an entire FIR after partially quashing it? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clause by reference to standard terms: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7(5), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Clarifies Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Contracts: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a general reference to standard terms and conditions in a contract is sufficient to incorporate an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. INOX WIND LTD. vs M/S THERMOCABLES LTD. Judgment Date: 05 January

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clause by reference to standard terms: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top