R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “consumer” in seed buyback agreements: Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. (6 March 2020)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(d), Consumer Rights, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies “Consumer” Definition in Seed Buyback Cases: Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether farmers who enter into buyback agreements with seed companies are considered “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law. Case Name: M/S Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & […]

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “consumer” in seed buyback agreements: Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. (6 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Ownership of Property Bequeathed in Will: M.S. Bhavani & Anr. vs. M.S. Raghu Nandan (2020)

/ Absolute Ownership, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 88, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 95, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Property Law, R. Subhash Reddy, Testamentary Law, Will Interpretation

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Ownership of Property Bequeathed in Will: M.S. Bhavani & Anr. vs. M.S. Raghu Nandan (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of a will to determine the nature of property rights bequeathed. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: M.S. Bhavani & Anr. vs. M.S. Raghu Nandan Judgment Date: March 5, 2020

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Ownership of Property Bequeathed in Will: M.S. Bhavani & Anr. vs. M.S. Raghu Nandan (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Perjury Case for Fabricated Evidence in Tenancy Dispute: New Era Fabrics Ltd. vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri (2020)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 195(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 340, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 193, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 199, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Orders Perjury Case for Fabricated Evidence in Tenancy Dispute: New Era Fabrics Ltd. vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party can be prosecuted for perjury for submitting fabricated evidence before the Supreme Court. CASE TYPE: Civil, Perjury Case Name: M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri & Ors.

Supreme Court Orders Perjury Case for Fabricated Evidence in Tenancy Dispute: New Era Fabrics Ltd. vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Perjury Application in Property Dispute: Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 340, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 193, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Offences Against Public Justice, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Dismisses Perjury Application in Property Dispute: Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated for giving false evidence before the Court. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Dispute, Criminal Procedure) Case Name: Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. vs. Johnson Dye Works

Supreme Court Dismisses Perjury Application in Property Dispute: Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Will-Based Property Division in Family Dispute: Sajan Sethi vs. Rajan Sethi (2020)

/ Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 2(h), Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Partition of Property, Property Law, R. Subhash Reddy, Will Interpretation

Supreme Court Upholds Will-Based Property Division in Family Dispute: Sajan Sethi vs. Rajan Sethi (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of a will and property division among family members. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Partition) Case Name: Sajan Sethi vs Rajan Sethi Judgment Date: 02 March 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 02 March 2020 Citation: Civil Appeal

Supreme Court Upholds Will-Based Property Division in Family Dispute: Sajan Sethi vs. Rajan Sethi (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Deposit Rule for Setting Aside Auction Sales: Narayan Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2020)

/ Auction Sales, Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 with Section 28, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Public Demand Recovery, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Deposit Rule for Setting Aside Auction Sales: Narayan Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2020) Date of the Judgment: February 25, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 170 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. (authored the judgment) Can an auction sale be set aside if the required deposit is not made

Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Deposit Rule for Setting Aside Auction Sales: Narayan Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Tenancy Claim on Evacuee Property: Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property (25 February 2020)

/ Evacuee Property, Goa Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989, Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964, Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 with Section 32, Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 with Section 2(23), Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 with Section 4, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Property Law, R. Subhash Reddy, Tenancy Law

Supreme Court Overturns Tenancy Claim on Evacuee Property: Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of tenancy laws to evacuee properties and the validity of tenancy claims without direct relationship with the Custodian. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Evacuee Property, Tenancy Law Case Name: Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar & Ors. vs. Custodian

Supreme Court Overturns Tenancy Claim on Evacuee Property: Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property (25 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Revival of Maintenance Petition: Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 362, Judges, Maintenance, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Allows Revival of Maintenance Petition: Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Family Court can revive a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) after it was previously disposed of based on a settlement between the parties. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana

Supreme Court Allows Revival of Maintenance Petition: Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act: Sobha Hibiscus Condominium vs. Managing Director, M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd. & Anr. (2020) INSC 136 (14 February 2020)

/ Consumer, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(1)(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Judges, Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 with Section 3(j), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Consumer Rights for Apartment Owners’ Associations Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 136 Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can a condominium association, formed under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, file a consumer complaint? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, clarifying

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act: Sobha Hibiscus Condominium vs. Managing Director, M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd. & Anr. (2020) INSC 136 (14 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim Repudiation Due to Lack of Hexane Storage License: M/S Baspa Organics Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) INSC 142 (14 February 2020)

/ Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with Section 3, Insurance Law, Judges, Licensing Requirements, Material Non-Disclosure, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Petroleum Act, 1934, Petroleum Act, 1934 with Section 8, Petroleum Rules, 1976, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim Repudiation Due to Lack of Hexane Storage License Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 142 Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can an insurance company reject a claim if the insured party did not have the required license to store hazardous materials?

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim Repudiation Due to Lack of Hexane Storage License: M/S Baspa Organics Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) INSC 142 (14 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim for Employee Dishonesty in Commodity Substitution Case

/ Consumer Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 405, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Insurance Claims, Insurance Law, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim for Employee Dishonesty in Commodity Substitution Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an insurance company is liable under a Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy for losses arising from the dishonest acts of employees, specifically in cases of commodity substitution. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law, Insurance Law Case Name: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. National

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim for Employee Dishonesty in Commodity Substitution Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Illegal Structures in Hampi Protected Area: Sakkubai vs. State of Karnataka (2020)

/ Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 with Section 11, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 with Section 14, Judges, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 with Section 19, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 with Section 20, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Protected Areas, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Illegal Structures in Hampi Protected Area LEGAL ISSUE: Whether constructions in a declared protected area, specifically Virupapura Gaddi, are legal without State Government permission. CASE TYPE: Heritage and environmental law. Case Name: Sakkubai Etc. Etc. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc. Etc. Judgment Date: 11 February 2020 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Illegal Structures in Hampi Protected Area: Sakkubai vs. State of Karnataka (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top