Judges

Supreme Court Relaxes Six-Month Waiting Period for Divorce by Mutual Consent: Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) INSC 777 (12 September 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13B, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the six-month minimum waiting period for a second motion in divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is mandatory or can be relaxed in exceptional cases. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Divorce Case Name: Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur Judgment Date: 12 September 2017 Introduction Citation: (2017) […]

Supreme Court Relaxes Six-Month Waiting Period for Divorce by Mutual Consent: Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) INSC 777 (12 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Clause: Aravali Power Company vs. Era Infra Engineering (2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 12, Arbitration Law with Section 13, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee of a party to a contract can act as an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the contract, before the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Judgment Date: 12

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Clause: Aravali Power Company vs. Era Infra Engineering (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142: X vs. Y (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13B, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the usual procedures under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute Case Name: X vs. Y Judgment Date: 12 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017 Citation: Not Available

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142: X vs. Y (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Absorption of Staff in Aided College Conversion Case: Ayurved Vikas Mandal vs. State of Gujarat (2017)

/ Absorption of Employees, Aided Institutions, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Service Law, State Government Obligations

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government is obligated to absorb the staff of an aided college when it is converted to a self-financing institution. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Ayurved Vikas Mandal vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [Judgment Date]: September 12, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 12, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC

Supreme Court Directs Absorption of Staff in Aided College Conversion Case: Ayurved Vikas Mandal vs. State of Gujarat (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Regulates Firework Sales to Curb Pollution in Delhi NCR: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (12 September 2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, The Explosives Act, 1884, The Explosives Act, 1884 with Section 4(d), The Explosives Rules, 2008

LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to a clean environment and the regulation of firework sales during festivals. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation concerning environmental pollution. Case Name: Arjun Gopal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 12 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017 Citation: I.A. No. 52448 of 2017

Supreme Court Regulates Firework Sales to Curb Pollution in Delhi NCR: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (12 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Land Possession Dispute: Rajnarayan Sharma vs. Sirnam Sharma (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Evidence Act, Evidence Act with Section 101, Evidence Act with Section 114, Judges, Land Disputes, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Possession of Land, Property Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of rightful possession of land in a property dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Rajnarayan Sharma vs. Sirnam Sharma and Others Judgment Date: 12 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 756 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can mere entries in

Supreme Court Settles Land Possession Dispute: Rajnarayan Sharma vs. Sirnam Sharma (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Judges, Property Law, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a private individual can claim ownership of a heritage temple and surrounding land based on adverse possession without proper pleadings and evidence. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj Judgment Date: September 12, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies seniority in IPS: Grade pay not the basis for seniority: Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Jha (2017) INSC 760 (12 September 2017)

/ Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2007, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Seniority, Service Law, Sixth Pay Commission

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 760 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can an officer’s seniority in the Indian Police Service (IPS) be determined by their grade pay, especially if they were inducted from another service? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying

Supreme Court clarifies seniority in IPS: Grade pay not the basis for seniority: Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Jha (2017) INSC 760 (12 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies parole eligibility for TADA convicts: Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) INSC 774

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Criminal Law, Furlough, Judges, Parole, Parole under TADA, Prisoner Rights, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) is a sufficient ground to deny parole. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Parole. Case Name: Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. Judgment Date: September 11, 2017. Introduction Can a person convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA)

Supreme Court clarifies parole eligibility for TADA convicts: Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) INSC 774 Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Land Acquisition Compensation Despite Lower Claim: Narendra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Fair Compensation, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 25, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 28A

Can a court award compensation higher than what was claimed by a landowner in land acquisition cases? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case. The Court ruled that it can award fair compensation based on the true market value, regardless of the initial claim. This decision ensures that landowners receive

Supreme Court Enhances Land Acquisition Compensation Despite Lower Claim: Narendra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of LIC Employee in Fraud Case: Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury vs. Life Insurance Corpn. & Anr. (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Disciplinary Proceedings, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 10, Judges, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, Misconduct, R.K. Agrawal, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of an employee for issuing receipts without receiving payment is justified. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury vs. Life Insurance Corpn. & Anr. Judgment Date: 11 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 11 September 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 788 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of LIC Employee in Fraud Case: Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury vs. Life Insurance Corpn. & Anr. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Interim Bail for Ryan School Trustees in Murder Case (11 December 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Anticipatory Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Interim Bail, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R.K. Agrawal

Can the top management of a school be granted interim bail when a student is murdered on the school premises? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while hearing an appeal against the grant of interim bail to the trustees of Ryan International School. The court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant interim

Supreme Court Upholds Interim Bail for Ryan School Trustees in Murder Case (11 December 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top