V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Denies Additional TDR for Recreation Ground Development: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Development Control Regulations, Judges, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with Section 126, Pankaj Mithal, Transferable Development Rights, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Denies Additional TDR for Recreation Ground Development: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Entitlement to additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for developing a recreation ground. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition/Town Planning Case Name: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. [Judgment Date]: May 08, […]

Supreme Court Denies Additional TDR for Recreation Ground Development: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Amenity TDR Entitlement in Land Acquisition Cases: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, Judges, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with Section 126, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with Section 2, Pankaj Mithal, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Amenity TDR Entitlement in Land Acquisition Cases: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a landowner is entitled to additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for developing a recreational ground on surrendered land. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition/Town Planning Case Name: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. The Municipal Corporation of

Supreme Court Clarifies Amenity TDR Entitlement in Land Acquisition Cases: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim Against Carrier Without Mandatory Notice: Essemm Logistics vs. Darcl Logistics (2023)

/ Carriage by Road Act, 2007, Carriage by Road Act, 2007 with Section 16, Carriers Act, 1865, Carriers Act, 1865 with Section 10, Common Carrier, Judges, Pankaj Mithal, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim Against Carrier Without Mandatory Notice: Essemm Logistics vs. Darcl Logistics (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a counterclaim against a common carrier for losses other than damage to goods requires a mandatory notice under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: ESSEMM LOGISTICS vs. DARCL LOGISTICS LIMITED & ANR.

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim Against Carrier Without Mandatory Notice: Essemm Logistics vs. Darcl Logistics (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows counterclaim for loss of business opportunity despite lack of notice under Carriage by Road Act, 2007: ESSEMM Logistics vs. DARCL Logistics Limited (2023) INSC 4712 (1 May 2023)

/ Carriage by Road Act, 2007, Carriage by Road Act, 2007 with Section 16, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order VIII Rule 6-A(4), Consignment, Judges, Pankaj Mithal, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Counterclaim Despite Lack of Notice in Logistics Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a counterclaim for damages related to loss of business opportunity, reputation, and overheads requires a mandatory notice to a common carrier under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, similar to claims for loss or damage to consignment. CASE

Supreme Court allows counterclaim for loss of business opportunity despite lack of notice under Carriage by Road Act, 2007: ESSEMM Logistics vs. DARCL Logistics Limited (2023) INSC 4712 (1 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Sentence Commencement for Escaped Life Convicts: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 365, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Pankaj Mithal, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Sentence Commencement for Escaped Life Convicts: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa (2023) Date of the Judgment: April 28, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 385 Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J. Can a life convict who escapes custody and is later convicted for another offense, have their subsequent sentence

Supreme Court Clarifies Sentence Commencement for Escaped Life Convicts: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay Scales Based on Qualifications: State of Gujarat vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt (26 April 2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 176, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Pankaj Mithal, Pay Scales, Service Law, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay Scales Based on Qualifications: State of Gujarat vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether different pay scales can be fixed for officers of the same cadre based on their educational qualifications, and whether Allopathic and AYUSH doctors are entitled to equal pay. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay Scales Based on Qualifications: State of Gujarat vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt (26 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement (20 April 2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 156(3), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences under PMLA, Pankaj Mithal, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 with Section 3, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 with Section 45, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) when the predicate offense has not been investigated for nine years. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Money Laundering) Case Name: Sanjay Raghunath

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement (20 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Upholding High Court Order in Unlawful Activities Case: Akhil Gogoi vs. State (NIA) (2023)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Judges, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 with Section 20, Pankaj Mithal, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 18, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 39, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Upholding High Court Order in Unlawful Activities Case: Akhil Gogoi vs. State (NIA) (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can grant bail to an accused when it upholds the High Court’s decision to set aside a discharge order by the Special Court. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Upholding High Court Order in Unlawful Activities Case: Akhil Gogoi vs. State (NIA) (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Upholding High Court Order in Unlawful Activities Case: Akhil Gogoi vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) INSC 392 (18 April 2023)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Judges, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 with Section 20, Pankaj Mithal, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 18, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with Section 39, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Upholding High Court Order in Unlawful Activities Case Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 392 Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J. Can an individual be granted bail even when the High Court has overturned a lower court’s order of discharge? The Supreme Court addressed

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite Upholding High Court Order in Unlawful Activities Case: Akhil Gogoi vs. National Investigation Agency (2023) INSC 392 (18 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Double Overtime for Supervisors in Security Printing & Minting Corporation case: Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. (2023) INSC 379 (18 April 2023)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 3(q), Factories Act, 1948, Factories Act, 1948 with Section 2(l), Factories Act, 1948 with Section 59(1), Factories Act, 1948 with Section 64(1), Judges, Pankaj Mithal, Service Matters, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies Double Overtime for Supervisors in Security Printing & Minting Corporation case Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 379 Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. Can supervisors in government-owned printing and minting corporations claim double overtime pay? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue, examining

Supreme Court clarifies Double Overtime for Supervisors in Security Printing & Minting Corporation case: Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. (2023) INSC 379 (18 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Overtime Entitlement for Supervisors in Government Printing Units: Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Vijay D. Kasbe (2023) INSC 388

/ Factories Act, 1948, Factories Act, 1948 with Section 2(l), Factories Act, 1948 with Section 59(1), Factories Act, 1948 with Section 64(1), Government Employees, Judges, Overtime Allowance, Pankaj Mithal, Service Law, Service Rules, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Overtime Entitlement for Supervisors in Government Printing Units Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 388 Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed whether supervisors in government-owned printing and minting facilities are entitled to double overtime pay under the Factories Act, 1948. This

Supreme Court Clarifies Overtime Entitlement for Supervisors in Government Printing Units: Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Vijay D. Kasbe (2023) INSC 388 Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence and procedural lapse: Fedrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

/ Appellate Review, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 235, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Pankaj Mithal, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence and procedural lapse: Fedrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2023 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s acquittal based on limited evidence, especially

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence and procedural lapse: Fedrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top