Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court settles superannuation date for teachers: Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) INSC 752 (16 October 2020)

/ Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Superannuation, Uday Umesh Lalit, University Statutes

Supreme Court Clarifies Teacher Superannuation Rules in Kumaun University Case LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of university statutes regarding the date of superannuation for teachers. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand [Judgment Date]: 16 October 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 16 October 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 752 Judges: Uday […]

Supreme Court settles superannuation date for teachers: Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) INSC 752 (16 October 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Doctors to Resume Studies: Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 437(3), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 with Section 4, Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 with Section 6(1), Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Doctors to Resume Studies: Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was right in restricting the mobility and educational pursuits of the accused doctors while on bail. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ankita Kailash Khandelwal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Allows Doctors to Resume Studies: Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance in Land Sale Dispute: B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala (2020)

/ Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 21, Registration Act, 1908, Registration Act, 1908 with Section 50(1), Specific Performance of Contract, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 10, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 12, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance in Land Sale Dispute: B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala (2020) Date of the Judgment: 18 September 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 707 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a seller of land renege on a sale agreement after accepting a significant portion of the payment? The

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance in Land Sale Dispute: B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court examines the validity of remission policy under Article 161 of the Constitution: Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 433-A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 161, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court examines the validity of remission policy under Article 161 of the Constitution: Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana (2020) Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2020 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2017 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Vineet Saran, J. Can a state government release prisoners based on

Supreme Court examines the validity of remission policy under Article 161 of the Constitution: Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Royal Family’s Shebaitship in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Management: Marthanda Varma vs. State of Kerala (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 290A, Constitutional Law with Article 363, Constitutional Law with Article 366(22), Indu Malhotra, Judges, Religious Endowments, Religious Law, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Royal Family’s Shebaitship in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Management LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Royal Family of Travancore retains the right to manage the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as Shebaits, despite the abolition of privy purses and princely privileges. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Religious Endowments. Case Name: Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr.

Supreme Court Upholds Royal Family’s Shebaitship in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Management: Marthanda Varma vs. State of Kerala (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Probation, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants LEGAL ISSUE: Seniority determination of civil servants who fail to pass departmental exams within the stipulated probation period. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Warad Murti Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Judgment Date: 15 June 2020 Date of

Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Restrictions on Agricultural Land Transfers via Wills: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 with Section 43, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 with Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Restrictions on Land Transfer, Testamentary Disposition, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Restrictions on Agricultural Land Transfers via Wills: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether agricultural land can be transferred to a non-agriculturist through a will under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. CASE TYPE: Land Law, Tenancy Law Case Name: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia etc. vs. State

Supreme Court Clarifies Restrictions on Agricultural Land Transfers via Wills: Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies powers of appellate authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in property valuation disputes.

/ Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with Section 47A, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Powers of Appellate Authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of powers of the appellate authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in cases of undervaluation of property during registration. CASE TYPE: Stamp Duty, Property Valuation Case Name: The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil

Supreme Court clarifies powers of appellate authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in property valuation disputes. Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Restructuring of Dues and Loan Disbursements in Amrapali Case (10 June 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Debt Recovery, Insolvency Law, Insolvency Law with NPA Accounts, Judges, Loan Restructuring, Project Management Consultant, Real Estate Law, Real Estate Law with Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Real Estate Law with Home Buyers, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Restructuring of Dues and Loan Disbursements in Amrapali Case (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether NBCC can be held liable for disputes and liabilities of Amrapali Group projects, whether the interest rate of 12% imposed on Royalgolf Link City Projects Private Limited was justified, whether the FAR can be returned to Noida and Greater

Supreme Court Directs Restructuring of Dues and Loan Disbursements in Amrapali Case (10 June 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Common Counseling for PG Medical Courses from 2021: Alapati Jyotsna vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Common Counseling for PG Medical Courses from 2021: Alapati Jyotsna vs. Union of India (2020) Date of the Judgment: May 26, 2020 Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No._____ of 2020 (Diary No.11011 of 2020) Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Can medical students be disadvantaged by separate counseling processes for different

Supreme Court Directs Common Counseling for PG Medical Courses from 2021: Alapati Jyotsna vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay of Section 143(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in refund processing: Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (29 April 2020)

/ Assessment of Income Tax Returns, Constitutional Law, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 143, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 241A, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Income Tax Refund Processing When Scrutiny Notice Issued LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Income Tax Department is obligated to process a tax refund under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when a scrutiny notice has been issued under Section 143(2) of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Case Name: Vodafone

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay of Section 143(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in refund processing: Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (29 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the issue of waiver of objection in Arbitration: Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd. vs. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (29 April 2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 16, Arbitration Law with Section 4, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award: Waiver of Objections on Venue Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2020 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11011 of 2019) Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J. Can a party object to the venue of arbitration after participating in the

Supreme Court settles the issue of waiver of objection in Arbitration: Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd. vs. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (29 April 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top