Judges

Supreme Court settles the existence of an arbitration agreement despite the absence of signatures on formal contract: M/s. Unissi (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (2008)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7, Dalveer Bhandari, Judges, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 01, 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Dalveer Bhandari, J. Does the absence of a formal signed agreement negate the existence of an arbitration agreement when parties have acted upon the terms of a tender containing an arbitration clause? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a […]

Supreme Court settles the existence of an arbitration agreement despite the absence of signatures on formal contract: M/s. Unissi (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the criteria for reinstatement and back wages in cases of termination of service: Talwara Coop. Credit vs. Sushil Kumar (2008)

/ Cyriac Joseph, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 17-B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25F, Judges, S.B. Sinha

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5951 of 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 336 of 2005] Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., Cyriac Joseph, J. When an employee’s services are terminated, what factors should an Industrial Court consider when deciding whether to reinstate the employee with back wages? The

Supreme Court clarifies the criteria for reinstatement and back wages in cases of termination of service: Talwara Coop. Credit vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for waiving interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act: B.M. Malani vs. Commr. of Income Tax (2008)

/ Cyriac Joseph, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 132, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 220(2A), Judges, S.B. Sinha

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 01, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., Cyriac Joseph, J. When can the Income Tax Department waive interest on delayed tax payments? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of B.M. Malani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, focusing on the interpretation

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for waiving interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act: B.M. Malani vs. Commr. of Income Tax (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles compensation for disability claims in motor accident cases: Ramprasad Balmiki vs. Anil Kumar Jain (2008)

/ Cyriac Joseph, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 163A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 166, S.B. Sinha, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 01, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5949 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17058 of 2006) Judges: S.B. Sinha, J. and Cyriac Joseph, J. How should courts determine compensation in motor accident cases involving disability? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where an appellant,

Supreme Court settles compensation for disability claims in motor accident cases: Ramprasad Balmiki vs. Anil Kumar Jain (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles procedure for demolition orders by Municipal Corporations: Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh (2008)

/ Aftab Alam, Judges, Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, Punjab Municipal Corporation Act with Section 269, Punjab Municipal Corporation Act with Section 270, S.B. Sinha

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2008 Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can a municipal corporation demolish a construction without proper notice and opportunity for a hearing? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh, concerning the legality of demolition orders issued by

Supreme Court settles procedure for demolition orders by Municipal Corporations: Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies liability for Provident Fund dues between Holding and Subsidiary Companies: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. (2008)

/ Civil Law, Dalveer Bhandari, Declaration, H.S. Bedi, Judges, Permanent Injunction, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 with Section 166

Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can a holding company be held responsible for the Provident Fund dues of its subsidiary? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case between the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. The court clarified that a subsidiary

Supreme Court clarifies liability for Provident Fund dues between Holding and Subsidiary Companies: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Technical Member Absence in IPAB for Patent Dispute: Natco Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008)

/ B. Sudershan Reddy, Judges, Patents Act, 1970, S.H. Kapadia, Section 116, Patents Act, 1970, Technical Member, IPAB

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 01, 2008 The Supreme Court of India stepped in to address a unique problem: what happens when the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which is supposed to handle complex patent disputes, doesn’t have a Technical Member? This issue arose in a case involving Natco Pharma Limited and the Union

Supreme Court Addresses Technical Member Absence in IPAB for Patent Dispute: Natco Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles limitation period for recovery of money in commercial transactions: Krishna Gopal Kakani vs. Bank of Baroda (2008)

/ Harjit Singh Bedi, Indian Trusts Act, Indian Trusts Act with Section 88, Judges, Limitation Act, Limitation Act with Article 113, Limitation Act with Article 22, Limitation Act with Section 10, Tarun Chatterjee

Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J. When does the limitation period begin for recovering money in a commercial transaction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a dispute between Krishna Gopal Kakani and Bank of Baroda.

Supreme Court settles limitation period for recovery of money in commercial transactions: Krishna Gopal Kakani vs. Bank of Baroda (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Attempted Murder Case: Murugan vs. State (2008)

/ Appeal against Acquittal, Arijit Pasayat, Attempt to Murder, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 342, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma

Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2008 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Can inconsistencies in witness statements undermine a conviction in an attempted murder case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in an appeal concerning

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Attempted Murder Case: Murugan vs. State (2008) Read Post »

Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India: Supreme Court Upholds Independence of Tribunals in Money Laundering Cases (2008)

/ Constitutional Amendments, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 368, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Rights, Judges, The First Amendment Act, 1951, The Twenty-Fifth Amendment Act, 1971, The Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1971

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question: Can the independence of tribunals established under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) be ensured to uphold the constitutional separation of powers? This question arose in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ms. Pareena Swarup,

Pareena Swarup vs. Union of India: Supreme Court Upholds Independence of Tribunals in Money Laundering Cases (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs reconsideration of pension case based on P.V. Neelakandan ruling (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Courts, High Court, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Supreme Court

Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Are High Court decisions final even when a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a pension dispute in Kerala. The court ultimately directed the High

Supreme Court directs reconsideration of pension case based on P.V. Neelakandan ruling (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court holds Reserve Bank of India not an “establishment” under Contract Labour Act: RBI vs. State (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with Section 2(e), The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with Section 2(e)(i)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Is the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) an “establishment” as defined under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970? This question was at the heart of a legal battle between the Reserve Bank of India and the

Supreme Court holds Reserve Bank of India not an “establishment” under Contract Labour Act: RBI vs. State (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top