Judges

Supreme Court settles the implementation date for Fifth Pay Commission recommendations for Maharashtra State Financial Corporation employees (02 February 2023)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Pay Revision, Retirement Benefits, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law

Supreme Court rules on implementation of Fifth Pay Commission for Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Employees LEGAL ISSUE: Whether denying pay revision benefits to employees of the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) who retired before a specific cut-off date is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: […]

Supreme Court settles the implementation date for Fifth Pay Commission recommendations for Maharashtra State Financial Corporation employees (02 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies pay revision benefits for MSFC employees: Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023) INSC 962 (02 February 2023)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 43, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Pay Revision, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Supreme Court rules on pay revision for retired employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Date of the Judgment: 02 February 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 962 Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Can a cut-off date for implementing pay revisions unfairly exclude employees who have already retired? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court clarifies pay revision benefits for MSFC employees: Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023) INSC 962 (02 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 with Paragraph 8(II)(vi), CRZ-II Areas, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Protection Act, 1986 with CRZ Notification, 2011, Environmental Law, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the term “in notified ports” under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011, concerning the permissibility of storage facilities for non-hazardous cargo. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law. Case Name: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt.

Supreme Court Interprets “In Notified Ports” Under CRZ Notification: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Coastal Regulation Zone Norms: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Coastal Regulation Zone, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 57, Customs Area, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Protection Act, 1986 with 2011 Notification, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Upholds Coastal Regulation Zone Norms: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “in” versus “within” concerning storage facilities in Coastal Regulation Zones. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 1 February 2023 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Coastal Regulation Zone Norms: K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Violation of Himachal Pradesh Land Laws: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023)

/ Civil Law, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 149, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 with Section 118, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Specific Performance, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Violation of Himachal Pradesh Land Laws LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing an appeal can be condoned, and whether a suit for specific performance can be granted when the initial agreement violates land transfer laws. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Ajay Dabra

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Violation of Himachal Pradesh Land Laws: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Invalid Land Transfer: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023)

/ Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Section 149, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 with Section 118, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Invalid Land Transfer: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing an appeal can be condoned based on insufficient funds and whether a suit for specific performance can be decreed when the initial contract for sale

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Specific Performance Suit Due to Delay and Invalid Land Transfer: Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Adultery Ruling’s Impact on Armed Forces: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2023)

/ Air Force Act, 1950, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Armed Forces Law, Army Act, 1950, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 33, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 497, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navy Act, 1957

Supreme Court Clarifies Adultery Ruling’s Impact on Armed Forces: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the applicability of the Joseph Shine judgment regarding adultery to the Armed Forces. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Constitutional Law) Case Name: Joseph Shine v. Union of India [Judgment Date]: 31 January 2023 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Clarifies Adultery Ruling’s Impact on Armed Forces: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case but Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) INSC 73

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case but Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) INSC 73 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred to another state due to concerns about witness intimidation and the fairness of the prosecution. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sunil Saini &

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case but Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) INSC 73 Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Constitutional Law, Fair Trial, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred to another state due to allegations of witness intimidation and an unfair prosecution. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case can be initiated when the core dispute is civil in nature. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 30 January 2023 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Civil Dispute: Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Against Property

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Civil Dispute: Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal proceedings can be initiated when the core dispute is civil in nature and a civil suit is already pending. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Civil Dispute: Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case: Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (30 January 2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, Consent, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 375, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 90, Judges, Rape

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case: Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 75 Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi Can a long-term consensual relationship be considered rape if a promise of marriage is not fulfilled? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case: Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (30 January 2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top