R. F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies No-Fault Liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act: Chandrakantha Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2020)

/ B.R. Gavai, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 163A, Navin Sinha, No Fault Liability, R. F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies No-Fault Liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act: Chandrakantha Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of “no-fault” liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Claim Case Name: Chandrakantha Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Judgment […]

Supreme Court Clarifies No-Fault Liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act: Chandrakantha Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies liability of insurance company: Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi vs. New India Assurance (2020)

/ Insurance Law, Insurance Liability, Judges, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims, Motor Vehicle Law, R. F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court clarifies liability of insurance company: Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi vs. New India Assurance (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an insurance company is liable to pay compensation for an accident caused by a vehicle that was transferred but not registered in the name of the new owner. CASE TYPE: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case Name: Sushilaben

Supreme Court clarifies liability of insurance company: Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi vs. New India Assurance (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Collective Investment Scheme Regulations for Trusts: OSIANS CONNOISSEURS OF ART PVT. LTD. vs. SEBI (2020)

/ Collective Investment Scheme, Judges, R. F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999, Securities Law, Securities Law with Section 11AA, Trust Law, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Collective Investment Scheme Regulations for Trusts: OSIANS CONNOISSEURS OF ART PVT. LTD. vs. SEBI (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trust operating a collective investment scheme is subject to the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). CASE TYPE: Securities Law/Collective Investment Scheme Case Name: OSIANS CONNOISSEURS OF ART PVT.

Supreme Court Clarifies Collective Investment Scheme Regulations for Trusts: OSIANS CONNOISSEURS OF ART PVT. LTD. vs. SEBI (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Challenge Based on Precedent: Union of India vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das (2020)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), R. F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, Supreme Court Judgments, Supreme Court Judgments with Kulsum R. Nadiadwala, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Challenge Based on Precedent: Union of India vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior judgment of the Supreme Court striking down a land acquisition notification applies to similarly situated parties, despite a delay in filing a challenge. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Union of India &

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Challenge Based on Precedent: Union of India vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes indefinite ban on pharmaceutical supplier: M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2019)

/ Contract Law, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, Public Procurement, R. F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Jurisdiction with Article 226

Supreme Court quashes indefinite ban on pharmaceutical supplier: M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a state government can indefinitely ban a pharmaceutical supplier without a prior hearing based on a criminal case against a former director. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Public Procurement, Writ Jurisdiction Case Name: M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals

Supreme Court quashes indefinite ban on pharmaceutical supplier: M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 62, R. F. Nariman, Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Limitation Act to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Sagar Sharma & Anr. vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: September 30, 2019

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Cancellation in Property Sale Case: Sankalp Recreation vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Auction Law, Cancellation of Auction, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 269UD(1), Judges, R. F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Cancellation in Property Sale Case: Sankalp Recreation vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of an auction process by the government, despite a highest bid above the reserve price, is valid. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal, Property Law, Auction Law. Case Name: Sankalp Recreation Private Limited vs. Union of

Supreme Court Upholds Auction Cancellation in Property Sale Case: Sankalp Recreation vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Probe into Uber’s Predatory Pricing: Competition Law Case (3 September 2019)

/ Abuse of Dominant Position, Competition Law, Competition Law with Section 4, Judges, Predatory Pricing, R. F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Uber’s Predatory Pricing Practices: Supreme Court Upholds CCI Probe in Competition Case (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Uber abused its dominant position by engaging in predatory pricing, violating Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 3

Supreme Court Upholds Probe into Uber’s Predatory Pricing: Competition Law Case (3 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Government Contract Disputes (30 April 2019)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Contract Law, Government Contracts, Government Litigation, Judges, Notice Requirements, R. F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Notice Requirements under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Government Contract Disputes Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2019 Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4495-4496 OF 2019 Judges: R. F. Nariman, J. and Vineet Saran, J. Can a government contractor proceed with a civil suit against the State without strictly adhering

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Government Contract Disputes (30 April 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim with 75% Disability: Anant vs. Pratap (21 August 2018)

/ Compensation, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Motor Accident Claims, Motor Vehicles Act, Motor Vehicles Act with Section 166, R. F. Nariman

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim with 75% Disability: Anant vs. Pratap (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of just compensation in motor accident claims involving permanent disability. CASE TYPE: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case Name: Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap Son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Another Judgment Date: 21 August 2018 Date of

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim with 75% Disability: Anant vs. Pratap (21 August 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top