Judges

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of orders regarding Mahantship succession: Mahant Rajendra Das Vaishanav vs. Gopal Das & Ors. (2008)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Dalveer Bhandari, Judges, R.V. Raveendran

Date of the Judgment: September 04, 2008 Citation: [Citation not available in the provided text] Judges: Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice Dalveer Bhandari Can previous orders of the Supreme Court be interpreted as final directives on the succession of a religious office, even without a formal adjudication? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case […]

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of orders regarding Mahantship succession: Mahant Rajendra Das Vaishanav vs. Gopal Das & Ors. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Amended Promotion Rules for UP Higher Judicial Service: V.K. Srivastava vs. Govt. of U.P. (2008)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 233, J.M. Panchal, Judges, K.G. Balakrishnan, Merit-cum-Seniority, P. Sathasivam, Promotion Rules, Retrospective Application, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 4th September 2008 The Supreme Court of India, in V.K. Srivastava & Ors. vs. Govt. of U.P. & Anr., addressed a critical question regarding the retrospective application of amended service rules concerning promotions within the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. This case highlights the conflict between established seniority rights and

Supreme Court Upholds Amended Promotion Rules for UP Higher Judicial Service: V.K. Srivastava vs. Govt. of U.P. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Order Denying Interest on Excise Refund: Union of India vs. Sterlite Industries (2008)

/ B. Sudershan Reddy, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Rule 57AC (7), Central Excise Rules, 1944, Judges, S.H. Kapadia

Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2008 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy When a government department delays a refund, is it obligated to pay interest on the delayed amount? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Sterlite Industries and the Union of India. The core issue revolved around whether

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Order Denying Interest on Excise Refund: Union of India vs. Sterlite Industries (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Promotion Based on Relaxed Qualification: Vijay Bala Bhanot vs. Government of NCT Delhi (2008)

/ Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Judges, R.V. Raveendran, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Relaxation Rules

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of promotions granted by relaxing educational qualifications, questioning whether such relaxations can be applied to individuals rather than a class or category of employees. The case revolves around Lab Technicians promoted to Technical Assistants based on relaxed criteria. The

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Promotion Based on Relaxed Qualification: Vijay Bala Bhanot vs. Government of NCT Delhi (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Excise Refund Interest Claim: Union of India vs. Sterlite Industries (2008)

/ B. Sudershan Reddy, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Rule 57AC (7), Central Excise Rules, 1944, Judges, S.H. Kapadia

Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2008 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, J. and B. Sudershan Reddy, J. When a company is entitled to a refund of excise duty, is it also entitled to interest on that refund? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Sterlite Industries. The court set aside a

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Excise Refund Interest Claim: Union of India vs. Sterlite Industries (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles deduction calculation under Section 80HHC for export businesses: M/s. Mysodet (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2008)

/ B. Sudershan Reddy, Deductions, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 80HHC, Judges, S.H. Kapadia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5475 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7323 of 2007) Judges: Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy How should deductions be calculated for export businesses under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act when a company has both export and

Supreme Court settles deduction calculation under Section 80HHC for export businesses: M/s. Mysodet (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order regarding regularization of Khalasis: Union of India vs. Laxman Singh Champalal (01 September 2008)

/ Administrative Law, Central Administrative Tribunal, Cyriac Joseph, Judges, Judicial Review, Reasoned Judgments, Regularization, Reversion, S.B. Sinha, Service Law, Tribunal Orders

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2008 Judges: S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. Can a High Court judgment be sustained if it lacks reasoning? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the regularization of employees in the post of Khalasis. The Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to provide

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order regarding regularization of Khalasis: Union of India vs. Laxman Singh Champalal (01 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order in Ex-Parte Decree Setting Aside Case: Pavan Sachdeva & Anr. vs. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. (01 September 2008)

/ Appellate Review, B.N. Agrawal, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX, Ex-parte Decree, G.S. Singhvi, Judges, Trial Court

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2008 Judges: B.N. Agrawal, J. and G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a High Court interfere with a Trial Court’s order that doesn’t show jurisdictional errors or material irregularities? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case regarding the setting aside of an ex-parte decree. The Supreme Court allowed the

Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order in Ex-Parte Decree Setting Aside Case: Pavan Sachdeva & Anr. vs. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. (01 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Section 498A IPC Despite Acquittal under Section 304B IPC: Dinesh Seth vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (18 August 2008)

/ Altamas Kabir, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 221, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 222, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 464, G.S. Singhvi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Offences Against Marriage

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 August 2008 Judges: Altamas Kabir, J. and G.S. Singhvi, J. Can a person be convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if they have been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC, especially when the charge under Section 498A IPC was not specifically framed? The

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction under Section 498A IPC Despite Acquittal under Section 304B IPC: Dinesh Seth vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (18 August 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the applicability of Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in land surrender cases: State of Kerala vs. Kondottyparambanm (05 August 2008)

/ Harjit Singh Bedi, Judges, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 with Section 85, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 with Section 85(9), Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 with Section 85(A), Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 05 August 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J. When can a land board reopen a case involving the surrender of excess land? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The core issue revolved around whether the dismissal

Supreme Court settles the applicability of Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in land surrender cases: State of Kerala vs. Kondottyparambanm (05 August 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Dispute for Fresh Adjudication: Siddharth Construction vs. D.T. Vora (2008)

/ B.N. Agrawal, Consumer Disputes, Consumer Law, G.S. Singhvi, Harjit Singh Bedi, Judges, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Date of the Judgment: July 31, 2008 Judges: Justice B.N. Agrawal, Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice G.S. Singhvi When intricate questions of fact arise in consumer disputes, should the matter be resolved through detailed evidence and evaluation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case involving Siddharth Construction and D.T. Vora, focusing

Supreme Court Remands Consumer Dispute for Fresh Adjudication: Siddharth Construction vs. D.T. Vora (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Review: Re-examining the Appointment of Teachers in Aided Institutions: State of West Bengal vs. Brahmo Samaj Education Society (31st July 2008)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(6), Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Education Law, Fundamental Rights, J.M. Panchal, Judges, K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 31st July 2008 The Supreme Court of India decided to review its earlier judgment in Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 224. The central question revolved around the extent of autonomy that aided minority institutions have in appointing teachers, particularly

Supreme Court Review: Re-examining the Appointment of Teachers in Aided Institutions: State of West Bengal vs. Brahmo Samaj Education Society (31st July 2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top