Supreme Court Upholds Auction Sale, Dismissing Claim of Bona Fide Purchaser: Siddagangaiah vs. Giriraja Shetty (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit is maintainable to challenge a court auction sale after an application to set aside the sale on grounds of material irregularity has been dismissed. Also, whether a sale during the pendency of a suit […]
Supreme Court Acquits Parents-in-Law in Dowry Harassment Case: Manoharan & Anr. vs. State (2018) Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 413 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can parents-in-law be held liable for dowry harassment if the primary allegations are against the husband and there’s a lack of
Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Arbitration Act, 1996 despite reference to 1940 Act: Purushottam vs. Anil (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a reference to the Arbitration Act, 1940 in a partnership agreement entered after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invalidates the arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Purushottam s/o Tulsiram
Supreme Court Directs Preservation of Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga: Sarika vs. Administrator (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Preservation of a religious shrine and balancing religious practices with conservation. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Sarika vs. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors. Judgment Date: 2 May 2018 Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC
Supreme Court Clarifies Share in Property Partition: Dharmalingam vs. Lalithambal (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct share of a buyer in a property after multiple partitions and sales. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Partition. Case Name: A.Dharmalingam (Dead) by LRs. vs. V. Lalithambal & Ors. [Judgment Date]: April 27, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: April
Supreme Court clarifies share in property partition: Dharmalingam vs. Lalithambal (2018) Read Post »
Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Plaint After Trial Commenced: Gurbakhsh Singh vs. Buta Singh (2018) Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 357 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a party amend their pleadings after the trial has commenced? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in
Supreme Court overturns perjury prosecution in election case: Prof. Chintamani Malviya vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a perjury prosecution should be initiated for a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Election Law) Case Name: Prof. Chintamani Malviya vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment Date: April
Supreme Court Rules Past Services Count for Pension Benefits in Reorganized States LEGAL ISSUE: Whether past services of employees in a bifurcated state should be counted for pension and other benefits. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Shakti Prasad Bhatt ETC. ETC. vs. The State of Uttarakhand AND ORS. ETC. Judgment Date: 26 April 2018
Supreme Court Rules on Family Property Dispute: Vinod Kumar Dhall vs. Dharampal Dhall (2018) INSC 289 Date of the Judgment: 16th April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 289 Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Can a property acquired in the name of one family member be considered family property, even if other family
Supreme Court Reverses Specific Performance Decree: Meenakshisundaram vs. Vijayakumar (2018) Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 237 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a buyer obtain specific performance of a sale agreement if they fail to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete the purchase? The Supreme Court
Supreme Court Addresses Delays in Criminal Appeals: Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 249 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can the justice system ensure timely resolution of criminal appeals, especially when individuals have spent a significant portion of
Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an objection to jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised earlier under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion
