Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies coal cost calculation in Power Purchase Agreement: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2017)

/ Contract Law, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 63, Implied Terms, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Tariff Determination

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) concerning the calculation of energy charges, specifically regarding the cost of coal. CASE TYPE: Contractual Dispute/Electricity Law. Case Name: Nabha Power Limited (NPL) vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) & Anr. Judgment Date: 05 October 2017 Date of the Judgment: 05 October 2017 Citation: 2017 […]

Supreme Court clarifies coal cost calculation in Power Purchase Agreement: Nabha Power Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Insurance Claim Dispute: Anu Texchem Products vs. New India Assurance (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Judges, Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Supreme Court Rules

Can a court reconsider its own judgment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question when M/s Anu Texchem Products (P) Ltd sought a review of a previous order. This case involves a dispute over an insurance claim. The Supreme Court, composed of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, ultimately dismissed the

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Insurance Claim Dispute: Anu Texchem Products vs. New India Assurance (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows simultaneous SARFAESI and arbitration proceedings in loan recovery: M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Hero Fincorp Ltd. (21 September 2017)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37(2)(b), Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, SARFAESI Act, 2002, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 35, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 37

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether arbitration and SARFAESI proceedings can occur simultaneously and if the SARFAESI Act applies to debts existing before the Act’s application to a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC). CASE TYPE: Loan Recovery/Banking Law Case Name: M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd. Judgment Date: 21 September 2017 Can a

Supreme Court allows simultaneous SARFAESI and arbitration proceedings in loan recovery: M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Hero Fincorp Ltd. (21 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Sue for Declaration of Marital Status: Samar Kumar Roy vs. Jharna Bera (2017)

/ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Special Marriage Act, 1954, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 34

LEGAL ISSUE: Can a legal heir continue a suit for declaration of marital status after the death of the original plaintiff? CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Specific Relief Case Name: Samar Kumar Roy (D) Through LR (Mother) vs. Jharna Bera Judgment Date: 05 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 790

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Sue for Declaration of Marital Status: Samar Kumar Roy vs. Jharna Bera (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Domestic Violence Case: Manmohan Attavar vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 29, Judges, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 17, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 2(s), Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a woman can claim the right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if she has never lived in that household with the respondent. CASE TYPE: Domestic Violence Case Name: Manmohan Attavar vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar Judgment Date: July 14, 2017 Introduction Can

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Domestic Violence Case: Manmohan Attavar vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court refers the issue of admissibility of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports to Constitution Bench: Kalpana Mehta vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 105, Constitutional Law with Article 145(3), Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha with Rule 270, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha with Rule 274, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha with Rule 277

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can rely on the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee in a writ petition. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Kalpana Mehta and Others vs. Union of India and Others [Judgment Date]: April 5, 2017 Date of the Judgment: April 5, 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Dipak Misra, J.,

Supreme Court refers the issue of admissibility of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports to Constitution Bench: Kalpana Mehta vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances land compensation: Om Parkash & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2016)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), Rohinton Fali Nariman

Can a court enhance land compensation when the Land Acquisition Collector has undervalued the land? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning land acquisition in Haryana. This judgment clarifies the principles for determining fair compensation for land acquired by the government. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justices Kurian

Supreme Court enhances land compensation: Om Parkash & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Continuity of Service but Limits Back Wages in Dismissal Case: Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Misri Yadav & Ors. (2016) INSC 19 (19 January 2016)

/ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 17-B, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Can a dismissed employee be granted continuity of service without full back wages? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and one of its dismissed employees. The court, while acknowledging the employee’s right to continuity of service, limited the back wages to be paid. This judgment clarifies

Supreme Court Grants Continuity of Service but Limits Back Wages in Dismissal Case: Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Misri Yadav & Ors. (2016) INSC 19 (19 January 2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes cancellation of Intermediate results: Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P. (2016)

/ A.K. Sikri, Constitutional Law, Educational Law, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Supplementary Regulations of 1976, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921

Can an educational board cancel a student’s exam results nine years after they were declared, without giving the student a chance to be heard? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case. This case revolves around the cancellation of an Intermediate examination result of an appellant by the U.P. Board, nine

Supreme Court quashes cancellation of Intermediate results: Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P. (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Gift Under Muslim Law: Sreeramachandra Avadhani vs. Shaik Abdul Rahim (2014)

/ Conditional Gifts, Corpus and Usufruct, Gift (Hiba), Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Muslim Law, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 5

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a gift of property under Muslim law, with conditions restricting its use or disposal, is valid. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Law, Gift under Muslim Law Case Name: V. Sreeramachandra Avadhani (D) BY L.RS. vs. Shaik Abdul Rahim & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 21 August 2014 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21

Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Gift Under Muslim Law: Sreeramachandra Avadhani vs. Shaik Abdul Rahim (2014) Read Post »

Scroll to Top