Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Consulting Engineer Under Finance Act, 1994: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation (2022)

/ Finance Act, 1994, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 65(31), Finance Act, 1994 with Section 66, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 68, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 3(42), Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Consulting Engineer Under Finance Act, 1994: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation (2022) Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4928 of 2018 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can a “body corporate” be considered a “consulting engineer” under […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of Consulting Engineer Under Finance Act, 1994: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim in Arbitration Despite Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause: National Highway Authority of India vs. Transstroy (India) Limited (2022) INSC 603 (11 July 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 23, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim in Arbitration Despite Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 603 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can a party be barred from filing a counterclaim in arbitration if they haven’t followed a pre-arbitration conciliation process, even if the main dispute is

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim in Arbitration Despite Contractual Dispute Resolution Clause: National Highway Authority of India vs. Transstroy (India) Limited (2022) INSC 603 (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Regulation 10 of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997: SEBI vs. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors (2022) INSC 608 (11 July 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Interpretation of Acquirer, Judges, Powers of SEBI, Sanjiv Khanna, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 with Regulation 10, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 with Regulation 11(1), Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15H

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Regulation 10 of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997: SEBI vs. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors (2022) INSC 608 (11 July 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Regulation 10 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, and the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Regulation 10 of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997: SEBI vs. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors (2022) INSC 608 (11 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the grant of higher pay scale under the Scheme to Municipal Employees: Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (18 May 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Pay Scale, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Service Law with Arrears

Supreme Court on Higher Pay Scale for Municipal Employees: Rushibhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether municipal employees are entitled to the higher pay scale of the next promotional post under the Scheme, and the extent to which arrears can be claimed. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs.

Supreme Court clarifies the grant of higher pay scale under the Scheme to Municipal Employees: Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (18 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Seat of Arbitration: BBR (India) vs. S.P. Singla Constructions (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 42, Judges, Place of Arbitration, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Seat of Arbitration: BBR (India) vs. S.P. Singla Constructions (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the jurisdictional seat of arbitration when a new arbitrator is appointed and conducts proceedings at a different location. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: BBR (India) Private Limited vs. S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited [Judgment Date]: 18

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Seat of Arbitration: BBR (India) vs. S.P. Singla Constructions (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay between pledge under Contract Act and Depositories Act: PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. Venkateswarlu Kari (12 May 2022)

/ Dematerialized Securities, Depositories Act, 1996, Depositories Act, 1996 with Section 12, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 176, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 177, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pledge, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Pledge Law and Depositories Act: PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. Venkateswarlu Kari (2022) Date of the Judgment: 12 May 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 479 Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can a pawnee (lender) automatically become the owner of pledged shares by simply recording themselves as the beneficial owner in

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay between pledge under Contract Act and Depositories Act: PTC India Financial Services Ltd. vs. Venkateswarlu Kari (12 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940: M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak vs. Modi Transport (2022)

/ Appointment of Commissioners, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 21, Bela M. Trivedi, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXVI, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 2, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940: M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak vs. Modi Transport (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a matter in a pending suit can be referred to arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 without a clear agreement between all parties. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: M.P.

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940: M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak vs. Modi Transport (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes conviction of partner under Section 138 NI Act for firm’s cheque bounce: Dilip Hariramani vs. Bank of Baroda (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Criminal Law, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 141, Offences by Companies, Sanjiv Khanna, Vicarious Liability

Supreme Court quashes conviction of partner under Section 138 NI Act for firm’s cheque bounce: Dilip Hariramani vs. Bank of Baroda (2022) Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 418 Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can a partner of a firm be held criminally liable for a cheque bounce

Supreme Court quashes conviction of partner under Section 138 NI Act for firm’s cheque bounce: Dilip Hariramani vs. Bank of Baroda (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court reinstates Constable after discharge for non-disclosure of trivial case: Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India (2 May 2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Discharge from Service, Judges, Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Recruitment, Rule 52, Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, Suppression of Information

Supreme Court reinstates Constable after discharge for non-disclosure of trivial case: Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-disclosure of a trivial criminal case, which ended in an honorable acquittal, can be a valid ground for discharging a selected candidate from service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Pawan Kumar vs. Union

Supreme Court reinstates Constable after discharge for non-disclosure of trivial case: Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India (2 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for Revised Pay Scale implementation in State PSUs: Odisha State Financial Corporation vs. Odisha State Financial Corporation Employees Union & Ors. (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Government Resolutions, Judges, Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008, Resolution dated May 8, 2009, Revised Pay Scale, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law, State Public Sector Undertakings

Odisha State Financial Corporation vs. Odisha State Financial Corporation Employees Union & Ors. LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) can implement revised pay scales without approval from the Administrative and Finance Departments. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Odisha State Financial Corporation vs. Odisha State Financial Corporation Employees Union & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for Revised Pay Scale implementation in State PSUs: Odisha State Financial Corporation vs. Odisha State Financial Corporation Employees Union & Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Probation in Theft Case: Som Dutt & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 361, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 379, Judges, Offences Against Property, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Grants Probation in Theft Case: Som Dutt & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appellants should be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after being convicted for theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Som Dutt

Supreme Court Grants Probation in Theft Case: Som Dutt & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Condonation of Delay, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing objections to an arbitration award can be condoned by the court, and whether the objections were dismissed without proper consideration of the merits of the case, including limitation issues. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top