Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Directs Refund and Sets Conditions for Affiliation: Lalitha R Nath vs. Kannur Medical College (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Medical College Admissions, Regulatory Compliance, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Directs Refund and Sets Conditions for Affiliation: Lalitha R Nath vs. Kannur Medical College (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Kannur Medical College (KMC) complied with orders to refund students, and the conditions for the college’s affiliation. CASE TYPE: Education Law, specifically concerning medical college admissions and regulatory compliance. Case Name: Lalitha R Nath and […]

Supreme Court Directs Refund and Sets Conditions for Affiliation: Lalitha R Nath vs. Kannur Medical College (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Unitholder Consent for Mutual Fund Winding Up: Franklin Templeton Case (2021)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 103, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 48, Judges, Mutual Funds, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna, SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, Securities Law, Securities Law with Regulation 18

Supreme Court Clarifies Unitholder Consent for Mutual Fund Winding Up: Franklin Templeton Case (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of regulations regarding unitholder consent for winding up of mutual fund schemes. CASE TYPE: Securities Law, Mutual Funds Case Name: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited and Another vs. Amruta Garg and Others etc. [Judgment Date]: 12 February

Supreme Court Clarifies Unitholder Consent for Mutual Fund Winding Up: Franklin Templeton Case (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16(1), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 20, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Scribes in Civil Services Exam Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 75 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indira Banerjee, J, Sanjiv Khanna, J Can a person with a disability, not classified as having a “benchmark disability,” be denied a scribe for

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Judgment in UMC Technologies Case: Employee Exclusion Clarified (2 February 2021)

/ Civil Procedure, Judges, Modification of Judgment, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Modifies Judgment in UMC Technologies Case: Employee Exclusion Clarified (2 February 2021) Date of the Judgment: 2 February 2021 Citation: Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2021 in C.A. No. 3687/2020 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna Did the Supreme Court modify its own judgment? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Modifies Judgment in UMC Technologies Case: Employee Exclusion Clarified (2 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (29 January 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Public Employment, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Law with LARSGESS Scheme

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of the LARSGESS Scheme by the Union of India was valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to appointment under the scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Writ Petition Case Name: Manjit and Ors vs. Union

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LARSGESS Scheme: Manjit & Ors vs. Union of India (29 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited (28 January 2021)

/ Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Land Acquisition Law with Section 4, Land Acquisition Law with Section 6, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an award for land acquisition was validly approved by the State Government, and the implications of such approval on subsequent acquisition proceedings. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case Name: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited (28 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021)

/ Acknowledgment of Liability, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is barred by limitation when the default occurred more than three years before the application was filed. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s. Reliance

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Casual Trader” definition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (21 January 2021)

/ Casual Trader, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Period, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 10A, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 10B, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 2(ccc), Sanjiv Khanna, Tax Assessment, Tax Law

Supreme Court Clarifies “Casual Trader” Definition Under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “Casual Trader” under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, concerning the time limit for tax assessment. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs. M/s Bhagat Singh [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies “Casual Trader” definition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (21 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14

/ Compensation, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Interest on Solatium, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14 Date of the Judgment: January 13, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 14 Judges: Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna Can a claimant receive interest on solatium (an additional sum awarded in land

Supreme Court clarifies interest on solatium under Land Acquisition Act: Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam Sarkar (2021) INSC 14 Read Post »

Central Vista Project: Supreme Court Upholds Land Use Changes and Environmental Clearance (5 January 2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Delhi Development Act, 1957, Delhi Development Act, 1957 with Section 11A, Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973, Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973 with Section 11, Dinesh Maheshwari, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Environmental Clearance, Environmental Impact Assessment, Functions of the Commission, Judges, Modifications to Master Plan, Sanjiv Khanna

Date of the Judgment: 5 January 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 1 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. (partially dissenting) Can the government proceed with a major infrastructure project despite public concerns and objections? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a challenge to the Central Vista Project, a

Central Vista Project: Supreme Court Upholds Land Use Changes and Environmental Clearance (5 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrability of Landlord-Tenant Disputes and Scope of Judicial Review: Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation (2020) INSC 804 (14 December 2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Judges, Krishna Murari, N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 114A

Can landlord-tenant disputes be resolved through arbitration, or are they exclusively reserved for civil courts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the legal position on arbitrability of such disputes and also the scope of judicial review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrability of Landlord-Tenant Disputes and Scope of Judicial Review: Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation (2020) INSC 804 (14 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295A, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 66F, Judges, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court on Hate Speech and Multiple FIRs: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: The case addresses the legal boundaries between free speech and hate speech, particularly in the context of media broadcasts, and the issue of multiple FIRs for the same incident. CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition Case Name: Amish Devgan

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top