Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar (2023)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Law, Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings, M.R. Shah, Manoj Misra, Payment of Compensation, Possession of Land, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if compensation hasn’t been paid, even if possession was taken. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Union […]

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar (2023) INSC 216 (13 March 2023)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, M.R. Shah, Manoj Misra, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if compensation has not been paid, despite possession being taken. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name:

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar (2023) INSC 216 (13 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies: Arbitration Clause in Amenities Agreement extends to Leave and License Agreement

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7(5), Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, International Commercial Arbitration, J B Pardiwala, Judges, Leave and License Agreement, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Clarifies Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Linked Agreements Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 232 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J Can an arbitration clause in one agreement be considered part of another agreement if the two are linked? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies: Arbitration Clause in Amenities Agreement extends to Leave and License Agreement Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Subsequent Purchasers Lack Locus Standi in Land Acquisition Cases (2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Subsequent Purchasers Lack Locus Standi (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the right to challenge land acquisition proceedings. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: March 13, 2023 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Subsequent Purchasers Lack Locus Standi in Land Acquisition Cases (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles locus standi of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition challenges: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. (13 March 2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Locus Standi, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Supreme Court rules subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2023) Date of the Judgment: 13 March 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 213 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can a person who buys land after the government has already started the process of

Supreme Court settles locus standi of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition challenges: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s. Beads Properties Pvt. Ltd. (13 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Land Acquisition Collector vs. B.S. Dhillon (2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 31, M.R. Shah, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Land Acquisition Collector vs. B.S. Dhillon (2023) Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 226 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have not taken possession

Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Land Acquisition Collector vs. B.S. Dhillon (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement Order: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India (2023)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Compulsory Retirement, Fundamental Rules, Fundamental Rules with Rule 56(j), Hima Kohli, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Fundamental Rule 56(j)

Supreme Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement Order: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the order of compulsory retirement of a government employee was justified under Fundamental Rule 56(j). CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and Another Judgment Date: 03 March 2023 Date

Supreme Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement Order: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment scheme for municipal employees in West Bengal: State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. (2023) INSC 176 (03 March 2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 39, Delay in Application, Directive Principles of State Policy, Judges, Krishna Murari, Municipal Employees, Service Law, West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment Act, 1999, West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment Act, 1999 with Section 3

Supreme Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment Scheme for Municipal Employees in West Bengal LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a scheme exists for compassionate appointment for municipal employees in West Bengal and the effect of delay in seeking such appointment. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Judgment Date: 03 March

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment scheme for municipal employees in West Bengal: State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. (2023) INSC 176 (03 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Change in Law in Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited & Ors. (2023) INSC 174 (03 March 2023)

/ B.R. Gavai, Change in Law, Contract Law, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Judges, Power Purchase Agreements, Regulatory Bodies, Tariff Determination, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Change in Law in Power Purchase Agreements Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 174 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J. Can changes in government policies regarding coal supply affect existing power purchase agreements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Change in Law in Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited & Ors. (2023) INSC 174 (03 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Coal Shortfall Under Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited & Ors. (2023) INSC 208 (03 March 2023)

/ B.R. Gavai, Change in Law, Contract Law, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Judges, Power Purchase Agreements, Tariff Determination, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Coal Shortfall Under Power Purchase Agreements Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 208 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J. Can power generating companies claim compensation for a shortfall in coal supply, and if so, how should this compensation be calculated? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Coal Shortfall Under Power Purchase Agreements: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited & Ors. (2023) INSC 208 (03 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Consumer Protection Rules: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. (3 March 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection Law, Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, Judges, M. R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Consumer Protection Rules: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of rules regarding qualifications and appointment procedures for members of State and District Consumer Commissions. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Law Case Name: The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr.

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Consumer Protection Rules: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. (3 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Protection Rules on Appointment of Members: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (2023)

/ Appointment of Members, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 217, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Judges, M. R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh

Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Protection Rules on Appointment of Members: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the rules for appointment of members to the State and District Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CASE

Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Protection Rules on Appointment of Members: Ministry of Consumer Affairs vs. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top