R.F. Nariman Archives

Supreme Court Sets Regularization Date for ONGC Employees: ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha vs. ONGC (2020)

February 13, 2020 / Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Industrial Dispute, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25-B, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Regularization of Employees, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

ONGC Employees Regularization: Supreme Court Sets Date for Regular Employment LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct date for regularizing term-based employees. CASE TYPE: Industrial Dispute Case Name: ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha vs. The Executive Director Basin Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (India) Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 13 February 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13 February […]

Supreme Court Sets Regularization Date for ONGC Employees: ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha vs. ONGC (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court restricts asset freezing under Section 241 of the Companies Act: Usha Ananthasubramanian vs. Union of India (2020)

February 12, 2020 / Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 241, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 337, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 339, Judges, R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Restricts Asset Freezing Under Companies Act: Usha Ananthasubramanian vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can freeze the assets of a person under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, for alleged mismanagement in a company other than the one they are directly associated with. CASE

Supreme Court restricts asset freezing under Section 241 of the Companies Act: Usha Ananthasubramanian vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs PCI to Recognize Past Admissions of Shirpur Education Society in Pharmacy Courses (31 January 2020)

January 31, 2020 / Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Education Law, Education Law with All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, Judges, Pharmacy Education, R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, Technical Education

Supreme Court Directs PCI to Recognize Past Admissions of Shirpur Education Society Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2020 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Can a regulatory body reduce the student intake of an existing educational institution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question

Supreme Court Directs PCI to Recognize Past Admissions of Shirpur Education Society in Pharmacy Courses (31 January 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Manipur Speaker to Decide Disqualification Petitions: Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors. (21 January 2020)

January 21, 2020 / Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Tenth Schedule, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Directs Manipur Speaker to Decide Disqualification Petitions: Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can direct a Speaker to decide a disqualification petition within a certain time, and whether such a direction would not fall foul of the quia timet action

Supreme Court Directs Manipur Speaker to Decide Disqualification Petitions: Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors. (21 January 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Act Applicability to Review Petitions under RDB Act

January 21, 2020 / Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 22, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 19, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 20, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 24, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Act Applicability to Review Petitions under RDB Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to review petitions filed under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. CASE TYPE: Debt Recovery/Banking Law Case Name: Standard

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Act Applicability to Review Petitions under RDB Act Read Post »

Supreme Court settles reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities: Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka (2020) INSC 26 (14 January 2020)

January 14, 2020 / Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16(1), Constitutional Law with Article 16(4), Judges, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 with Section 33, R.F. Nariman, Reservation in Promotions, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation in Promotions for Persons with Disabilities Date of the Judgment: 14 January 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 26 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can persons with disabilities be given reservation in promotions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, clarifying the extent of reservation for

Supreme Court settles reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities: Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka (2020) INSC 26 (14 January 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement with Modified Pay for KVS Employee: Mangilal Kajodia vs. Union of India (2020)

January 8, 2020 / CCS Conduct Rules 1964, CCS Conduct Rules 1964 with Rule 7(ii), Joining Time Rules, Judges, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, R.F. Nariman, Reinstatement of Employees, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law

Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement with Modified Pay for KVS Employee: Mangilal Kajodia vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) can be removed from service for not joining a transfer location, and what relief can be granted if the removal is deemed too harsh. CASE TYPE: Service Law

Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement with Modified Pay for KVS Employee: Mangilal Kajodia vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Refund of Excess Spectrum Charges: Union of India vs. Reliance Communication Limited (2020)

January 7, 2020 / Breach of contract, Contract Law, Execution of Contract, Judges, R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, Spectrum Auction, Telecom Law, Telecom Law with Clause 4.5b(ix) of NIA 2013, Telecom Law with Clause 4.5b(x) of NIA 2015, Unjust Enrichment

Supreme Court Orders Refund of Excess Spectrum Charges: Union of India vs. Reliance Communication Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Union of India can withhold excess amounts realized from the encashment of bank guarantees after the licensee has furnished fresh guarantees for the same liability. CASE TYPE: Telecom/Contract Law Case Name: Union of India vs.

Supreme Court Orders Refund of Excess Spectrum Charges: Union of India vs. Reliance Communication Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996: BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC LTD. (2019) INSC 1052 (10 December 2019)

December 10, 2019 / Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 13, Judges, R.F. Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996 Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1052 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a contractual clause specifying a venue for arbitration proceedings also be considered the “seat” of arbitration, thereby determining which courts have jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996: BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC LTD. (2019) INSC 1052 (10 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Uttar Pradesh to Rejoin Tehri Hydro Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Union of India (6 December 2019)

December 6, 2019 / Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure with Order VIII Rule 1, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Judges, R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Allows Uttar Pradesh to Rejoin Tehri Hydro Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh should be allowed to rejoin a suit after being set down ex parte. CASE TYPE: Original Suit Jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. Case Name: State

Supreme Court Allows Uttar Pradesh to Rejoin Tehri Hydro Dispute: State of Uttarakhand vs. Union of India (6 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refers Rule 5 Validity Challenge Back to Division Bench: M/S Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 1234 (05 December 2019)

December 5, 2019 / Aniruddha Bose, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 3A, Central Excise Rules, 1997, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, R.F. Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refers Rule 5 Validity Challenge Back to Division Bench Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1234 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. When a case is referred to a larger bench, is it always necessary for the larger bench to answer the questions referred? The

Supreme Court Refers Rule 5 Validity Challenge Back to Division Bench: M/S Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 1234 (05 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Capital Gains Tax on Property Transfer: Seshasayee Steels vs. ACIT (2019)

December 4, 2019 / Aniruddha Bose, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 144, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(47), Judges, R.F. Nariman, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 53A, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Capital Gains Tax on Property Transfer: Seshasayee Steels vs. ACIT (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the point of transfer for capital gains tax on immovable property under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning agreements to sell and subsequent compromise deeds. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: M/s Seshasayee Steels P. Ltd.

Supreme Court Clarifies Capital Gains Tax on Property Transfer: Seshasayee Steels vs. ACIT (2019) Read Post »