Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 8, Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Central Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 in cases where an arbitration agreement exists. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: The State […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies timeline for balance payment in property auction under SARFAESI Act: Rakesh Birani vs Prem Narain Sehgal (21 March 2018)

/ Arun Mishra, Enforcement of Security Interest, Judges, SARFAESI Act with Rule 9, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 with Rule 9(2), Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 with Rule 9(4), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Timeline for Balance Payment in Property Auction under SARFAESI Act LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the commencement date for the 15-day period to deposit the remaining 75% of the auction amount in a property sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. CASE TYPE: Securitisation and

Supreme Court clarifies timeline for balance payment in property auction under SARFAESI Act: Rakesh Birani vs Prem Narain Sehgal (21 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in service matters (20 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 193, Judges, Offences Against Public Justice, Offences under the Atrocities Act, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(ix), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Safeguards Against Misuse of the Atrocities Act LEGAL ISSUE: Safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Service Law Case Name: Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 20 March 2018 Can a public servant

Supreme Court clarifies safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in service matters (20 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 29, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 33, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Foreign Law Firms’ Practice in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether foreign law firms and lawyers are permitted to practice law in India. CASE TYPE: Regulatory/Advocacy Case Name: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji and Ors. Judgment Date: March 13, 2018 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) Read Post »

Multinational Accounting Firms’ Operations in India: Supreme Court directs review of regulatory framework in S. Sukumar vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. (23 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Section 2(2), Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Section 25, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Section 29, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with Foreign Exchange Management (Investment in Firm or Proprietary concern in India) Regulations, 2000, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Addresses Multinational Accounting Firms’ Operations in India: S. Sukumar vs. ICAI & Ors. (2018) Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2018 Citation: S. Sukumar vs. The Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2422 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1808 of 2016) with Writ Petition

Multinational Accounting Firms’ Operations in India: Supreme Court directs review of regulatory framework in S. Sukumar vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judges, Public Interest, Public Service Commission, Recruitment, Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8, Right to Information Act, 2005, Service Law, Transparency, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing transparency and confidentiality in public examinations under the Right to Information Act, 2005. CASE TYPE: Service Law / Right to Information Case Name: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 112 (13 February 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Executive Decisions, Judges, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 112 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a public interest litigation (PIL) be used to settle political scores? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while dismissing petitions alleging

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Purchase: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2018) INSC 112 (13 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 2(o), Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 2(t), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of electronic evidence and the use of videography in crime scene investigations. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Evidence Law Case Name: Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh Judgment Date: 30 January 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Use of Videography in Crime Scenes Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Engineering Degrees Awarded Through Distance Education: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd vs. Rabi Sankar Patro (22 January 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 with Section 10, Deemed Universities, Distance Education, Education Law, Judges, Technical Education, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Engineering Degrees Awarded Through Distance Education: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd vs. Rabi Sankar Patro (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the validity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities and the applicability of a mandatory test. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp.

Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Engineering Degrees Awarded Through Distance Education: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd vs. Rabi Sankar Patro (22 January 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even if they were acquitted, and whether courts can substitute their views for the committee’s decision. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Police Recruitment, R. Banumathi, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Screening Committee can deny employment to candidates with a criminal history, even after acquittal, for the post of constable in the police force. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Criminal

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, R. Banumathi, Recruitment, Screening Committee, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Screening Committee can deny appointment to candidates with a criminal history, despite acquittal, for the post of constable. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration

Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal History: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top