V. Ramasubramanian

Study Leave During Pandemic: Supreme Court directs reconsideration of denial of study leave: Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (15 July 2021)

/ Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 with Rule 50, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Government Employees, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Public Interest, Service Law, Study Leave, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of Study Leave for Doctor Amidst COVID-19: Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government doctor can be denied study leave during a pandemic. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of […]

Study Leave During Pandemic: Supreme Court directs reconsideration of denial of study leave: Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (15 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Bail for Gangster in U.P. Gangster Act Case: Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (23 April 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, S.A. Bobde, U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with Section 3(1), V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Cancels Bail for Gangster in U.P. Gangster Act Case: Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2021 Citation: Sudha Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3577 of 2020) Judges: S.A. Bobde,

Supreme Court Cancels Bail for Gangster in U.P. Gangster Act Case: Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (23 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Corruption Cases Citing Fair Trial Rights: Devendra Kumar Saxena vs. CBI (20 April 2021)

/ Criminal Law, Fair Trial, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7 and 13, Transfer of Criminal Cases, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Corruption Cases Citing Fair Trial Rights: Devendra Kumar Saxena vs. CBI (20 April 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred due to the medical condition of the accused, balancing their right to a fair trial with the rights of other co-accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Devendra

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Corruption Cases Citing Fair Trial Rights: Devendra Kumar Saxena vs. CBI (20 April 2021) Read Post »

Gokarna Temple Administration: Supreme Court Orders Interim Committee in Ramachandrapura Math vs. Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Devaru (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, B.N. Srikrishna, Judges, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 with Section 1(4), Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 with Section 20-A, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 with Section 23, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Intervenes in Gokarna Temple Dispute: Ramachandrapura Math vs. Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Devaru (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Dispute over the administration and ownership of the Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple. CASE TYPE: Religious and Charitable Endowments Law Case Name: Ramachandrapura Math vs. Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Devaru & Ors. Judgment Date: April 19, 2021 Introduction Date of the

Gokarna Temple Administration: Supreme Court Orders Interim Committee in Ramachandrapura Math vs. Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwara Devaru (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Protection of Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) INSC 217 (19 April 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 135, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 166(2), Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 2(a), Environmental Law, Judges, Public Trust Doctrine, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Protection of Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 217 Judges: S. A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), A.S. Bopanna J., and V. Ramasubramanian J. Can India’s endangered bird species be saved from extinction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question

Supreme Court Orders Protection of Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) INSC 217 (19 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Preserve INS Viraat: Envitech Marine Consultants vs. Union of India (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Contract Law, Contract Law with Auction, Government Contracts, Judges, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Preserve INS Viraat: Envitech Marine Consultants vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for converting a decommissioned warship into a museum can be entertained after the warship has been sold and dismantling has commenced. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Contract

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Preserve INS Viraat: Envitech Marine Consultants vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits registration of BS-IV vehicles for public utility and educational purposes: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (09 April 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, BS-IV Vehicles, D.Y. Chandrachud, Environmental Law, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Public Utility Services, Registration of Vehicles, V. Ramasubramanian, Vehicular Emissions

Supreme Court Permits Registration of BS-IV Vehicles for Public Utility and Educational Purposes: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2021) Date of the Judgment: 09 April 2021 The Supreme Court of India, in a series of applications within the ongoing case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, addressed the registration of Bharat Stage-IV (BS-IV)

Supreme Court permits registration of BS-IV vehicles for public utility and educational purposes: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (09 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order II Rule 2, Judges, Res Judicata, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dispute exists for arbitration when a previous court order noted a settlement between parties, but no formal settlement agreement was recorded. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: V. Sreenivasa Reddy vs. B.L. Rathnamma [Judgment Date]: April 08, 2021 Date of the

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deportation, Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners Act, 1946 with Section 2(a), Foreigners Act, 1946 with Section 3, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Non-refoulement, Refugee Law, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the principle of non-refoulement is applicable to Rohingya refugees in India, and whether they can be protected from deportation. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Refugee Law Case Name: Mohammad Salimullah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Family Law, Judges, Matrimonial Disputes, Property Settlement, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can dispose of a transfer petition by facilitating a divorce by mutual consent and settlement of property disputes based on a settlement agreement reached during mediation. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Matrimonial

Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (26 March 2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 128, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 129, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 182, Constitutional Law, Electoral Bond Scheme, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 29C, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 31, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 should be stayed. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law Case Name: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 26 March 2021 Date

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Electoral Bond Scheme: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India (26 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tata Sons’ Actions, Rejects Oppression Claims in Cyrus Mistry Case (26 March 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Articles of Association, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 14, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 241, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 242, Corporate Governance, Corporate Law, Judges, Oppression and Mismanagement, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 187 Judges: S.A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), A.S. Bopanna J., V. Ramasubramanian J. Can a company’s board remove its chairman for loss of confidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a high-profile dispute involving Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry. This

Supreme Court Upholds Tata Sons’ Actions, Rejects Oppression Claims in Cyrus Mistry Case (26 March 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top