Introduction Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 237 Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J. When a couple divorces, what happens to pending maintenance cases? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in the case of Jatinder Kumar Sapra vs. Anupama Sapra. The court clarified that a lump sum […]
Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 228 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the extent and finality of permanent alimony in divorce cases, particularly concerning pending maintenance cases. The central question was whether a lump sum permanent alimony awarded by the Supreme
Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 218 Judges: Dipankar Datta J., Sandeep Mehta J. Can an employer suppress crucial evidence to justify the termination of an employee? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) vs. Mahadeo Krishna
Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 217 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Did industrial units in Goa receive the electricity rebate they were promised? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving several companies and the State of Goa. The core issue revolved around
Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 212 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. When does the service of a temporarily appointed engineer count towards seniority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving engineers in Andhra Pradesh. The court clarified the rules for determining
Date of the Judgment: February 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 211 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Can a state government dissolve a private university for mismanagement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of CMJ Foundation vs. State of Meghalaya. The court examined the legality of
Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 176 Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Was the recruitment process for Class IV employees in Palamu, Jharkhand, fair and transparent? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving appointments made based on an advertisement from 2010. The
Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 194 Judges: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sandeep Mehta Can a superior’s reprimand in the workplace amount to criminal intimidation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of B.V. Ram Kumar vs. State of Telangana, where an appeal was filed against
Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 174 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. When a stockbroker initiates arbitration to recover losses from a client’s account, can the client’s spouse be held jointly liable for the debt? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving
Date of the Judgment: February 04, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 149 Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Can an employee’s dismissal be upheld even after acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving an employee of the Airport Authority of India (AAI) who was
Date of the Judgment: January 24, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 104 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Karol, J., and Sandeep Mehta, J. When does the right to claim a stamp duty refund arise when a property deal is cancelled? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether the date of execution
Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Bombay High Court Order on Land Encroachment: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can declare a High Court judgment illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution, and what remedies are available to parties not heard in the original proceedings. CASE TYPE: Constitutional
