S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of post-based roster for promotions in Railways: V. Lakshmikanthan vs. Union of India (22 November 2017)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Promotion, Reservation, S. Abdul Nazeer, Seniority, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the date of implementation of post-based roster for promotions in government services. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Promotion and Reservation. Case Name: V. Lakshmikanthan and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 22 November 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2017 Citation: [Not available in the source] […]

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of post-based roster for promotions in Railways: V. Lakshmikanthan vs. Union of India (22 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Confiscation of Undeclared Gold: Gunwantlal Godawat vs. Union of India (22 November 2017)

/ Defence of India Rules, 1962, Defence of India Rules, 1962 with Rule 126L(2), Defence of India Rules, 1962 with Rule 126M, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, J. Chelameswar, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the redemption fine for confiscated gold under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and the applicability of the Gold Control Act, 1968. CASE TYPE: Civil (Confiscation and Gold Control) Case Name: Gunwantlal Godawat vs. Union of India & Another Judgment Date: 22 November 2017 Can the government confiscate gold that was

Supreme Court Upholds Confiscation of Undeclared Gold: Gunwantlal Godawat vs. Union of India (22 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Reservation in Upgradation in Service Matters: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. K. Nagarathnamma (22 November 2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Reservation in Service, S. Abdul Nazeer, Service Law, Upgradation in Service

Can reservation policies extend to simple upgradation in service? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). The Court clarified that reservation is not applicable in cases of simple upgradation, relying on its previous judgment on the same issue. This judgment, delivered on 22nd

Supreme Court settles Reservation in Upgradation in Service Matters: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. K. Nagarathnamma (22 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Excise Duty on Marketable Agarbathi Perfume: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. (2017)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Deepak Gupta, Excise Duty, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Marketability, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether excise duty is applicable on perfumery compounds used in agarbathi manufacturing, and whether actual marketing is necessary for levying such duty. CASE TYPE: Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore vs. M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 12 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Excise Duty on Marketable Agarbathi Perfume: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules Against Builder for Selling Shop Already Booked: Kusum Agarwal vs. Harsha Associates (2017)

/ Builder-Buyer Disputes, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Deepak Gupta, Deficiency in Service, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Real Estate Law, Real Estate Transactions, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Deficiency in service by a builder for selling a property already booked to another customer. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Kusum Agarwal & Anr. vs. M/s Harsha Associates Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 12 October 2017 Can a builder sell a property to someone else after it has already been booked by a

Supreme Court Rules Against Builder for Selling Shop Already Booked: Kusum Agarwal vs. Harsha Associates (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim Despite Delay in Intimation: Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance (2017)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 379, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an insurance claim can be rejected solely based on a delay in intimation, despite the claim being genuine. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. [Judgment Date]: October 4, 2017 Date of the Judgment: October 4, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 888 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J.

Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Claim Despite Delay in Intimation: Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Attempt to Murder Conviction to Simple Hurt: Shyam Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)

/ Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 324, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer

Date of the Judgment: October 4, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 873 Judges: Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Can a conviction for attempt to murder be reduced to simple hurt if the injury is not on a vital part of the body and there was no pre-meditation? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Reduces Attempt to Murder Conviction to Simple Hurt: Shyam Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Probation to First-Time Offenders Under Essential Commodities Act: Dhurukumar vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) INSC 804 (4 October 2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 with Section 360, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with Section 7, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer

Date of the Judgment: 4 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 804 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can first-time offenders convicted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 be granted probation instead of imprisonment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act,

Supreme Court Grants Probation to First-Time Offenders Under Essential Commodities Act: Dhurukumar vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) INSC 804 (4 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed payments in arbitration: Chittaranjan Maity vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Breach of contract, Contract Law, General Conditions of Contract, J. Chelameswar, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 849 Judges: J. Chelameswar, S. Abdul Nazeer Can an arbitrator award interest on delayed payments when the contract explicitly prohibits it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning a railway construction contract. The court clarified the extent of an

Supreme Court clarifies interest on delayed payments in arbitration: Chittaranjan Maity vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Kidnapping Case: Fekan Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2017)

/ Anticipatory Bail, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 365, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Kidnapping, S. Abdul Nazeer

Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail without considering the gravity of the accusations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the alleged kidnapping of a minor. This case highlights the importance of considering the seriousness of the charges when granting pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court, in this criminal

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Kidnapping Case: Fekan Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision on Witness Re-examination in Criminal Case: Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Ors (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 311, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Criminal Conspiracy, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, S. Abdul Nazeer, Witness Examination

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can reject a witness’s application for re-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) if the application is made after a significant delay and without sufficient explanation, especially when the witness had previously supported the prosecution’s case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Ratanlal vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision on Witness Re-examination in Criminal Case: Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Ors (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement: P. Chandrakala vs. K. Narender (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 357(3), Compounding of Offence, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be set aside if the parties have settled the dispute. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Smt. P. Chandrakala vs. K. Narender & Anr. Judgment Date: 24 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 661 Judges:

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement: P. Chandrakala vs. K. Narender (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top