Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies daughters’ inheritance rights after family partition: Shailndra Kumar Jain vs. Maya Prakash Jain (2019)

/ Class I Heirs, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order 1 Rule 10, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 6, Indu Malhotra, Inheritance Rights of Daughters, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies daughters’ inheritance rights after family partition: Shailndra Kumar Jain vs. Maya Prakash Jain (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether daughters are necessary parties in a suit concerning the partition of ancestral property, particularly when a prior partition had occurred among male family members. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Law, Inheritance Law. Case Name: Shailndra […]

Supreme Court clarifies daughters’ inheritance rights after family partition: Shailndra Kumar Jain vs. Maya Prakash Jain (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Property Under SAFEMA Based on COFEPOSA Detention: Narender Kumar vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with Section 10, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with Section 12A, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with Section 3, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 with Section 2, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Property Under SAFEMA Based on COFEPOSA Detention: Narender Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) can serve as the basis for forfeiture of property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Property Under SAFEMA Based on COFEPOSA Detention: Narender Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher in Sexual Harassment Case: Lucy Sequeira Trust vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel (2019)

/ Departmental Inquiry, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 354(a), Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 509, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 9(f), Service Law, Termination of Service, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher in Sexual Harassment Case: Lucy Sequeira Trust vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The key legal issue was whether the school management was justified in terminating a teacher’s services based on a departmental inquiry, despite pending criminal proceedings related to sexual harassment allegations. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Sexual

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher in Sexual Harassment Case: Lucy Sequeira Trust vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Chief Mutawalli Succession in Hamdard Laboratories Case: Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors. (2019) INSC 276 (3 April 2019)

/ Hemant Gupta, Judges, Lineal Primogeniture, Management of Wakf, Succession Law, Succession of Mutawalli, Uday Umesh Lalit, Wakf Deed, Wakf Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Chief Mutawalli Succession in Hamdard Laboratories Case Date of the Judgment: 3 April 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 276 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Hemant Gupta, J. (authored the judgment) Who should manage a family-run charitable organization after the death of the previous head? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question

Supreme Court Clarifies Chief Mutawalli Succession in Hamdard Laboratories Case: Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors. (2019) INSC 276 (3 April 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows appeal against rejection of plaint under Benami Act: Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal (2019) INSC 268

/ Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 with Section 4, Code of Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Capacity, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, Rejection of Plaint, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court allows appeal against rejection of plaint under Benami Act: Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal (2019) INSC 268 Date of the Judgment: April 02, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 268 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if

Supreme Court allows appeal against rejection of plaint under Benami Act: Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal (2019) INSC 268 Read Post »

Supreme Court on Unfair Terms in Apartment Buyer Agreements: Pioneer Urban Land vs. Govindan Raghavan (2019)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(r), Contract Law, Indu Malhotra, Judges, One-Sided Contracts, Uday Umesh Lalit, Unfair Contract Terms, Unfair Trade Practices

Supreme Court on Unfair Terms in Apartment Buyer Agreements: Pioneer Urban Land vs. Govindan Raghavan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether clauses in an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement are binding if they are one-sided and unfair. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan Judgment Date: April 2, 2019 Introduction Date

Supreme Court on Unfair Terms in Apartment Buyer Agreements: Pioneer Urban Land vs. Govindan Raghavan (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the timeline for investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office in corporate fraud cases: Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi and Another (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 212, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 435, Judges, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 with Section 43, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies SFIO Investigation Timelines: Rahul Modi Case (2019) Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 282 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. (Majority Opinion by Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Concurring Opinion by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.) Can an investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) become

Supreme Court settles the timeline for investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office in corporate fraud cases: Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi and Another (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Pavan Vasudeo Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (25 March 2019)

/ Bombay Police Act, Bombay Police Act with Section 135, Bombay Police Act with Section 37(1), Indian Arms Act, Indian Arms Act with Section 25, Indian Arms Act with Section 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 392, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Pavan Vasudeo Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Pavan Vasudeo Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Pavan Vasudeo Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (25 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Pension to VSNL Employees with Less Than 10 Years of Service: P. Bandopadhya vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 216 (15 March 2019)

/ Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with Rule 37(1), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with Rule 49(2), Indu Malhotra, Judges, Pensionary Benefits, Service Law, Service Law with Transfer of Employees, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Pension to VSNL Employees with Less Than 10 Years of Service LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees of a government department converted into a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) are eligible for pensionary benefits under the Central Government if they had less than 10 years of qualifying service at the time of absorption

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Pension to VSNL Employees with Less Than 10 Years of Service: P. Bandopadhya vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 216 (15 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Age Relaxation for Outsourced Workers: Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. vs. M. Shivani (2019)

/ Indu Malhotra, Judges, Recruitment, Service Law, Service Law with Contract Employees, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Denies Age Relaxation for Outsourced Workers: Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. vs. M. Shivani (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether outsourced workers are entitled to the same age relaxation benefits as direct employees in recruitment processes. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Electronic Corporation of India Limited and Anr vs. M. Shivani and Anr.

Supreme Court Denies Age Relaxation for Outsourced Workers: Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. vs. M. Shivani (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “consequential benefits” in superannuation cases: K. Ananda Rao vs. Sri S.S. Rawat (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service Law, Service Law with Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Act, 1984, Superannuation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies “consequential benefits” in superannuation cases: K. Ananda Rao vs. Sri S.S. Rawat (2019) Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2019 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and M.R. Shah, J. Citation: Not Available What exactly do “consequential benefits” mean when a government employee’s retirement age is increased? The Supreme Court of India recently

Supreme Court clarifies “consequential benefits” in superannuation cases: K. Ananda Rao vs. Sri S.S. Rawat (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies preferential rights on agricultural land under Hindu Succession Act: Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh (2019) INSC 176 (7 March 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 22, Intestate Succession, Judges, Legislative Competence, List II, State List, List III, Concurrent List, M.R. Shah, Preferential Right, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Preferential Rights on Agricultural Land Under Hindu Succession Act Date of the Judgment: 7 March 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 176 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can a person’s right to buy family property be prioritized over an outsider when the property is agricultural land? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court clarifies preferential rights on agricultural land under Hindu Succession Act: Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh (2019) INSC 176 (7 March 2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top