Supreme Court on Arbitration and Stamp Duty: Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Ors. vs. M/S Bhaskar Raju & Brothers & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Enforceability of an arbitration clause in a lease deed that is not sufficiently stamped under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Dharmaratnakara […]
Supreme Court Orders Refund for Undelivered Sand Block: Popatrao vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) Date of the Judgment: February 14, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 138 Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai, J., Surya Kant, J. Can a citizen be denied a refund for a government contract when the government fails to deliver the contracted goods?
Supreme Court Allows Transportation of Mined Ore Post Dues Payment: State of Odisha vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a buyer of already mined and processed iron ore can be restricted from transporting it from the seller’s lease area due to the seller’s lack of environmental clearance, despite the buyer having
Supreme Court clarifies parity in service termination cases: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs Ram Gopal (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee, whose services were terminated due to irregularities in the initial selection process, is entitled to reinstatement based on parity with another employee who was initially terminated for the same reason but was later allowed
Supreme Court permits transportation of already mined iron ore: Chowgule and Company Private Limited vs. Goa Foundation & Ors. (2020) INSC 47 Date of the Judgment: January 30, 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 47 Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. Can mining leaseholders transport iron ore that was mined before a court-ordered
Supreme Court Clarifies Timelines for Filing Written Statements in Non-Commercial Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the timeline for filing a written statement in a non-commercial civil suit is mandatory or directory under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Desh Raj vs. Balkishan [Judgment Date]: 20 January
Supreme Court initiates review of criminal justice system for sexual offences LEGAL ISSUE: Examination of the criminal justice system’s response to sexual offences. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: In Re : Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in Response to Sexual Offences. Judgment Date: 18 December 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019
Supreme Court Expands Definition of ‘Government Hospital’ for Doctor Recruitment in Bihar Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 978 Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Surya Kant, J. Can work experience in any non-private hospital be considered for recruitment of doctors in Bihar? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a
Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Ad-hoc Employees: Rajnish Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether ad-hoc employees who have worked for more than 10 years are entitled to regularization. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 December
Supreme Court Clarifies Regularization and Promotion Rights for Ad-Hoc Employees: Siraj Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior ad-hoc service of an employee appointed through a selection process can be counted for promotion after regularization, even if the initial appointment lacked formal concurrence from the Public Service Commission. CASE TYPE: Service
Supreme Court Orders Grace Marks in Haryana Civil Judge Exam: Pranav Verma & Ors vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2019) Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 982 Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai, J., Surya Kant, J. Can a flawed evaluation process justify awarding grace marks to candidates?
Supreme Court grants parity in land acquisition compensation despite delay: Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a land owner who did not appeal a High Court order in a timely manner can receive the same compensation as other land owners who did appeal promptly in the same land acquisition
