Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Power Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 61, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Tariff Determination

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a surcharge can be levied on arc furnace industries for not shifting to a 66 KV power supply line, despite earlier exemptions. CASE TYPE: Electricity Regulatory Law Case Name: Waryam Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: 19 June 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 19 June […]

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Power Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award: Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta (2017) INSC 530 (19 June 2017)

/ Contempt of Court, Judges, Labor Law, Minimum Wages, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Wage Boards, Working Journalists Act, 1955, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 12, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 16, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 17

Date of the Judgment: 19 June 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 530 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can newspaper employees be denied the wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question in a batch of contempt petitions, clarifying the scope and implementation of the Majithia Wage Board

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award: Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta (2017) INSC 530 (19 June 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Extinguishment of Redemption Right After Auction Sale: Allokam Peddabbayya vs. Allahabad Bank (2017)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIV, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rights of Mortgagor, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 60, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 91

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the right to redeem a mortgaged property is extinguished after an auction sale and issuance of a sale certificate, even if the purchaser of the equity of redemption was not a party to the foreclosure suit. CASE TYPE: Civil (Mortgage Redemption) Case Name: Allokam Peddabbayya and another vs. Allahabad Bank and others

Supreme Court Upholds Extinguishment of Redemption Right After Auction Sale: Allokam Peddabbayya vs. Allahabad Bank (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Damages for Wrongful Termination: Kanchan Udyog Ltd. vs. United Spirits Ltd. (2017)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 8, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party can claim damages for loss of anticipated profits and costs for plant installation after a contract termination. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Commercial Dispute Case Name: Kanchan Udyog Limited vs. United Spirits Limited [Judgment Date]: June 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: June 19, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Supreme Court Denies Damages for Wrongful Termination: Kanchan Udyog Ltd. vs. United Spirits Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Majithia Wage Board Award: Supreme Court clarifies implementation in Contempt Case (2017)

/ Contempt of Court, Contempt of Court with Wilful Disobedience, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Working Journalists Act, 1955, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 16, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 17

LEGAL ISSUE: Implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award for working journalists and non-journalist employees. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court / Labour Law Case Name: Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta Judgment Date: 19 June 2017 Can newspaper establishments be held in contempt for not fully implementing the Majithia Wage Board Award? The Supreme

Majithia Wage Board Award: Supreme Court clarifies implementation in Contempt Case (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 61, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Regulatory Law, Regulatory Power, Statutory Authority, Tariff Determination

Can a regulatory body impose a surcharge on industries for not complying with voltage supply norms? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving arc furnace industries in Punjab. This case clarifies the extent of regulatory power in enforcing electricity supply standards and the validity of surcharges imposed for non-compliance. The

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017) Read Post »

Surcharge on Power Supply: Supreme Court Rules Against Arc Furnace Industries in Waryam Steel Castings Case (2017)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 61, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Tariff Determination

Can electricity providers levy a surcharge on industries that don’t upgrade their power infrastructure? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving arc furnace industries in Punjab. The court upheld the surcharge, finding it a justified measure to offset costs incurred by the power corporation. This judgment clarifies the power of

Surcharge on Power Supply: Supreme Court Rules Against Arc Furnace Industries in Waryam Steel Castings Case (2017) Read Post »

Contract Formation: Supreme Court Decides on Proposal and Counter-Proposal in Vedanta Ltd. vs. Emirates Trading Agency LLC (21 April 2017)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

Can a contract be formed if there is a proposal and a counter-proposal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over a supply agreement. This case clarifies the essential elements required for a valid contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court ultimately ruled that no contract

Contract Formation: Supreme Court Decides on Proposal and Counter-Proposal in Vedanta Ltd. vs. Emirates Trading Agency LLC (21 April 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Market Expansion Despite Procedural Lapses: Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. N. Krishnappa (2017) INSC 372 (17 April 2017)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 6(1), Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 24(2)

Can a land acquisition be upheld even with procedural errors? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition for a market expansion. The Court acknowledged procedural infirmities but upheld the acquisition, emphasizing the larger public interest. This case highlights the balance between procedural compliance and public benefit in land

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Market Expansion Despite Procedural Lapses: Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. N. Krishnappa (2017) INSC 372 (17 April 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Ownership in Land Dispute: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors (2017)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Declaration of Ownership, Judges, Non-Joinder of Parties, Property Law, Ranjan Gogoi, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 34

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors Judgment Date: 10 February 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Ownership in Land Dispute: Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust vs. Chandran & Ors (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Uphaar Tragedy Case: Fine Imposed Instead of Additional Jail Time

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 65, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Affecting the Human Body, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a sentence of imprisonment can be substituted with a fine, and the extent of punishment for offences under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal and Another Judgment Date: 9th February 2017 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Uphaar Tragedy Case: Fine Imposed Instead of Additional Jail Time Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Public Servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act for Bank Officials (23 February 2016)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 46A, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 409, Judges, Offences by Public Servants, Prafulla C. Pant, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 2(c), Public Duty, Ranjan Gogoi

Can officials of a private bank be considered “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving alleged corruption at Global Trust Bank. This judgment clarifies the scope of “public servant” definition, particularly in the context of banking regulations. The bench comprised Justices

Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Public Servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act for Bank Officials (23 February 2016) Read Post »

Scroll to Top