Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of ITAT Appointments: Advocate Association Bengaluru vs. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (2022)

/ A M Khanwilkar, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 270A, Judges, Judicial Review, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Search-cum-Selection Committee, Service Law, Tribunal Appointments, Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 with Section 3(7)

Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of ITAT Appointments: Advocate Association Bengaluru vs. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) can rely on feedback received after the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) recommendations without referring it back to the SCSC. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Contempt Case Name: Advocate Association Bengaluru vs. Anoop Kumar […]

Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of ITAT Appointments: Advocate Association Bengaluru vs. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Orders on Fly Ash Disposal: Aravali Power Co. vs. Vedprakash (2022)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 with Section 3, Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Orders on Fly Ash Disposal: Aravali Power Co. vs. Vedprakash (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the proper disposal and utilization of fly ash generated by thermal power plants, and the environmental compliances required for the same. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: M/s Aravali Power Co

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Orders on Fly Ash Disposal: Aravali Power Co. vs. Vedprakash (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies exclusion clause in insurance policy: IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance vs. New India Detergents (2022) INSC 445 (06 May 2022)

/ Consumer Complaint, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Exclusion Clause, Insurance Law, Insurance Policy, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Date of the Judgment: 06 May 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 445 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. Can an insurance company deny a claim based on an exclusion clause? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over storage charges. The court had to determine

Supreme Court clarifies exclusion clause in insurance policy: IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance vs. New India Detergents (2022) INSC 445 (06 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rights of applicants under discontinued schemes: Ritu Maheshwari vs. Promotional Club (2022) INSC 447

/ Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Land Allotment, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Scheme Termination, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies rights of applicants under discontinued schemes: Ritu Maheshwari vs. Promotional Club (2022) INSC 447 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an applicant has a right to allotment under a discontinued scheme. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Allotment Case Name: Ritu Maheshwari vs. M/s. Promotional Club Judgment Date: May 5, 2022 Date of the Judgment: May

Supreme Court clarifies rights of applicants under discontinued schemes: Ritu Maheshwari vs. Promotional Club (2022) INSC 447 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Senior Advocate Designation Criteria: Marks for Years of Practice (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit, Writ Petition

Supreme Court Clarifies Senior Advocate Designation Criteria: Marks for Years of Practice (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the allocation of marks for years of practice for designation as Senior Advocate. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Case Name: Amar Vivek Aggarwal & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Clarifies Senior Advocate Designation Criteria: Marks for Years of Practice (2022) Read Post »

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, Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 with Section 73, Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 with Section 74, 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 »

Scroll to Top