V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Disclosure of Segmented Offers in Telecom Tariff Dispute: TRAI vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2020) INSC 721 (06 November 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Judges, Regulatory Authority, S.A. Bobde, Telecom Law, Telecom Law with Section 11(1)(b)(i), Telecom Law with Section 11(2), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Disclosure of Segmented Offers in Telecom Tariff Dispute Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 721 Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a telecom regulator demand details of segmented offers from service providers to ensure fair pricing? The Supreme Court addressed this question in […]

Supreme Court Orders Disclosure of Segmented Offers in Telecom Tariff Dispute: TRAI vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2020) INSC 721 (06 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs speedy trial in matrimonial dispute case: T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar vs. Tubati Srivalli & Ors. (2020) INSC 497 (06 November 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court directs speedy trial in matrimonial dispute case: T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar vs. Tubati Srivalli & Ors. (2020) INSC 497 (06 November 2020) Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 497 Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a High Court stay a trial when the Supreme Court

Supreme Court directs speedy trial in matrimonial dispute case: T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar vs. Tubati Srivalli & Ors. (2020) INSC 497 (06 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits registration of BS-IV vehicles for essential services: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Air Pollution, BS-IV Emission Standards, Environmental Law, Essential Services, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian, Vehicle Registration

Supreme Court permits registration of BS-IV vehicles for essential services: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether BS-IV compliant vehicles used for essential services can be registered despite restrictions on such vehicles. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India Judgment Date: November 2, 2020

Supreme Court permits registration of BS-IV vehicles for essential services: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs CBI Probe and CRPF Security in Hathras Case: Satyama Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (27 October 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, S. A. Bobde, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 15, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Directs CBI Probe and CRPF Security in Hathras Case: Satyama Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (27 October 2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring fair investigation and witness protection in a case of alleged gang rape and murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition Case Name: Satyama Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of

Supreme Court Directs CBI Probe and CRPF Security in Hathras Case: Satyama Dubey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (27 October 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Striking of Prayer for Declaring Election Petitioner as Duly Elected: Muniraju Gowda vs. Munirathna (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Judges, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 100, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 101, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 83, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Striking of Prayer for Declaring Election Petitioner as Duly Elected: Muniraju Gowda vs. Munirathna (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an election petitioner can be declared elected in place of a disqualified returned candidate when there were multiple candidates in the fray and the election petition lacks material facts to support such a declaration.

Supreme Court Upholds Striking of Prayer for Declaring Election Petitioner as Duly Elected: Muniraju Gowda vs. Munirathna (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Vacates Status Quo Order in Land Dispute: Hanumappa vs. State of Karnataka (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Civil Procedure, Interim Orders, Judges, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Land Law, S. A. Bobde, Special Leave Petition, Tenancy Disputes, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Vacates Status Quo Order in Land Dispute: Hanumappa vs. State of Karnataka (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a status quo order should continue in a land dispute where a tenant’s claim is contested and the land’s nature has changed. CASE TYPE: Land Dispute/Tenancy Case Name: Hanumappa (Since Deceased) by His Lrs. & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Vacates Status Quo Order in Land Dispute: Hanumappa vs. State of Karnataka (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case: Neetu Yadav vs. Sachin Yadav (2020)

/ Divorce Proceedings, Family Law, Grounds for Transfer, Judges, Matrimonial Dispute, Transfer of Cases, Transfer Petition, Transfer Petition (Civil), V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case: Neetu Yadav vs. Sachin Yadav (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a divorce petition should be transferred to a court convenient for the wife, considering her dependency and the location of her children, or remain at the location where the husband resides and has filed the petition. CASE TYPE: Family Law –

Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case: Neetu Yadav vs. Sachin Yadav (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases: Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (30 September 2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 462, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 26, Judges, Offences, Territorial Jurisdiction, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Addresses Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (2020) Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 716 Judges: Justice V. Ramasubramanian Can a criminal case be transferred simply because the accused claims the location of the crime doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the court where

Supreme Court clarifies territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases: Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (30 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies arbitration clause applicability in Balasore Alloys vs. Medima LLC (16 September 2020)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies arbitration clause applicability in Balasore Alloys vs. Medima LLC LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct arbitration clause when multiple agreements exist between the same parties for the same transaction. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Medima LLC Judgment Date: 16 September 2020 Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020

Supreme Court clarifies arbitration clause applicability in Balasore Alloys vs. Medima LLC (16 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of SSLC for Junior Bailiff Post: R. Palanisamy vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras (24 July 2020)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Educational Qualification, Judges, Promotion, S. A. Bobde, Service Law, Service Law with Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of SSLC for Junior Bailiff Post: R. Palanisamy vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pass in SSLC (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) is a mandatory educational qualification for promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: R. Palanisamy & Ors.

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of SSLC for Junior Bailiff Post: R. Palanisamy vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras (24 July 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court on Liability for Highway Accidents Due to Environmental Damage: NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch (2020)

/ Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 2, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with Section 3, Judges, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with Section 154, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 17, Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court on Liability for Highway Accidents Due to Environmental Damage: NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Liability for environmental damage and highway safety. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Tort Law, Highway Law Case Name: The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Ors. Judgment Date: 14

Supreme Court on Liability for Highway Accidents Due to Environmental Damage: NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of Electronic Records in Election Petitions: Arjun Panditarao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

/ Admissibility of Electronic Records, Definitions, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 65B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 80, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 81, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Admissibility of Electronic Records: Arjun Panditarao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) Date of the Judgment: 14th July, 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 510 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can electronic records, such as video recordings, be admitted as evidence in court without a formal certificate? The

Supreme Court clarifies Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of Electronic Records in Election Petitions: Arjun Panditarao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top