Supreme Court Upholds Expansion of Hazira Port Limits: Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can alter port limits under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, and if such alteration was done in public interest. CASE TYPE: Port and Infrastructure Law Case Name: Essar Bulk […]
Supreme Court Upholds Section 21A of Banking Regulation Act, but Carves Out Exception for State Debt Relief Acts in Agricultural Indebtedness Cases (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: The constitutional validity of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which restricts courts from reviewing interest rates charged by banks. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Banking Law, Debt Relief
Supreme Court Clarifies “Brand Name” Definition in Excise Duty Exemption for Jute Bags: RDB Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether affixing the name, logo, and particulars of buyers on jute bags constitutes a “brand name” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby disqualifying them from excise duty exemption. CASE TYPE:
Supreme Court Upholds Termination Clause in Power Purchase Agreement: Rithwik Energy vs. BESCOM (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a notice of default under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) must strictly adhere to the terms of the agreement to be valid, and whether a party can be estopped from challenging a finding on a subsequent event it
Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Timelines under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act Date of the Judgment: 6 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 96 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Navin Sinha, J. Can a land owner be indefinitely deprived of using their land if the government delays acquisition? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question regarding
Supreme Court refers Jallikattu case to Constitution Bench: Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, which allows Jallikattu, is constitutional and aligns with animal welfare laws. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Animal Welfare Case Name: Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of
Supreme Court refers Jallikattu case to Constitution Bench LEGAL ISSUE: Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2017, regarding the conduct of Jallikattu. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Animal Welfare Case Name: The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 2 February 2018 Can a state law
Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Appeals under Companies Act: Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. vs. Kalyan Chowdhury (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, after the expiry of the condonable delay
Supreme Court on Market Access Denial Under Competition Act: Competition Commission of India vs. Fast Way Transmission (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether termination of a broadcast agreement by a dominant Multi-System Operator (MSO) constitutes “denial of market access” under Section 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002, even if the broadcaster and MSO are not direct competitors.
Supreme Court Clarifies Interim Awards Under Arbitration Act: IFFCO vs. Bhadra Products (2018) Date of the Judgment: 23 January 2018 Citation: M/S Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-Operative Limited v. M/S Bhadra Products (2018) INSC 47 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Navin Sinha, J. Can an arbitrator’s decision on the issue of limitation be considered an interim
Supreme Court Interprets Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act: National Travel Services vs. Commissioner of Income Tax LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “shareholder” and “beneficial owner” under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: National Travel Services vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, VIII Judgment Date: 18
Can the Central Government ban a drug without consulting the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the interpretation of Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This case examines the extent of the Central Government’s power to regulate drugs in the interest of
