Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Orders Consideration of Mercy Petition Despite Pending Co-accused Appeal: Balwant Singh vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 72, Criminal Law, Death Penalty, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Mercy Petition, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Orders Consideration of Mercy Petition Despite Pending Co-accused Appeal Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha Can a mercy petition be kept pending indefinitely because a co-accused’s appeal is still being heard? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this […]

Supreme Court Orders Consideration of Mercy Petition Despite Pending Co-accused Appeal: Balwant Singh vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of marine insurance policies in fire loss claims: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2 May 2022)

/ Contract Interpretation, Fire Insurance, General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972, General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 with Section 25, Insurance Law, Judges, Marine Insurance, Marine Insurance Act, 1963, Marine Insurance Act, 1963 with Section 2(d), Marine Insurance Act, 1963 with Section 2(e), Marine Insurance Act, 1963 with Section 3, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of marine insurance policies in fire loss claims: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “marine policy” and its interplay with standard fire and special perils policies. CASE TYPE: Insurance Law. Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of marine insurance policies in fire loss claims: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles reservation benefits for employees post-state reorganization: Akhilesh Prasad vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission (26 April 2022)

/ Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 with Section 73, Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 with Section 74, Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 341, Constitutional Law with Article 342, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation Benefits Post-State Reorganization in Akhilesh Prasad vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of a bifurcated state are entitled to reservation benefits in the newly formed state for promotions through limited departmental examinations. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Akhilesh Prasad vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court settles reservation benefits for employees post-state reorganization: Akhilesh Prasad vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission (26 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the definition of “Despatch” in Export Credit Insurance: Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (25 April 2022)

/ Contract Law, Contract Law with Standard Form Contract, Export Credit Insurance, Insurance Law, Insurance Law with Contra Proferentem, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies “Despatch” Date in Export Insurance: Haris Marine Products vs. ECGC (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “despatch/shipment” date in export credit insurance policy. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law/Insurance Law Case Name: Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited Judgment Date: 25 April 2022 Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2022 Citation:

Supreme Court settles the definition of “Despatch” in Export Credit Insurance: Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (25 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022)

/ Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr.

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for Domestic Violence Act applications: Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 468, Cognizance, Domestic Violence, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 31, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Domestic Violence Act Applications: Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022) Date of the Judgment: April 13, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 409 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 be dismissed solely on the

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for Domestic Violence Act applications: Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights: Refund with Interest for Delayed Apartment Possession

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 14, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(g), Deficiency in Service, Delayed Possession, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 18, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights: Refund with Interest for Delayed Apartment Possession LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer is entitled to a refund with interest for delayed possession of an apartment despite a delay compensation clause in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Rights: Refund with Interest for Delayed Apartment Possession Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300-A, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition with Section 4, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can evade its responsibility to compensate landowners for land acquired without due process, citing delay and laches. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Constitutional Law. Case Name: Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. vs. State of

Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Sarepalli Sreenivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022)

/ Criminal Law, Dowry Death, Evidence, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Sarepalli Sreenivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) Date of the Judgment: April 06, 2022 The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed a critical issue of dowry death and the culpability of the husband and his family members. Can a death be classified as dowry

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Sarepalli Sreenivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes LARSGESS Scheme benefits: Union of India vs. Bhagwan Deen (2022)

/ Government Schemes, Judges, LARSGESS Scheme, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Termination of Schemes, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court quashes LARSGESS Scheme benefits: Union of India vs. Bhagwan Deen (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether benefits can be claimed under the LARSGESS Scheme after its termination. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Bhagwan Deen & Anr. Judgment Date: April 05, 2022 Date of the Judgment: April 05, 2022

Supreme Court quashes LARSGESS Scheme benefits: Union of India vs. Bhagwan Deen (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Parity in Regularization Benefits: Milan Rana vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Parity in Benefits, Regularization, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Grants Parity in Regularization Benefits: Milan Rana vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022) Date of the Judgment: April 05, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 289 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can an employee be denied benefits that were previously granted to a similarly situated employee?

Supreme Court Grants Parity in Regularization Benefits: Milan Rana vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail in GST Offence Case: Mohit Bathla vs. Central Goods and Service Tax (2022)

/ Bail, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with Section 132, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with Section 134, Criminal Law, Criminal Law with Section 439, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Grants Bail in GST Offence Case: Mohit Bathla vs. Central Goods and Service Tax (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Grant of bail in cases involving offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Mohit Bathla vs. Central Goods and Service Tax, Division Panipat, CGST Commissionerate, Panchkula [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Grants Bail in GST Offence Case: Mohit Bathla vs. Central Goods and Service Tax (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top