V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022)

/ Contract Law, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Judicial Review in Contract Matters, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 41(ha), Tender Process, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can interfere with a tender process and halt an infrastructure project based on minor deviations in bid documents. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Infrastructure Development, Tender Process. Case Name: M/S. N.G. Projects […]

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1980 Murder Case: Karan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

/ Burden of Proof, Evidence Law, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, V. Ramasubramanian, Witness Testimony

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1980 Murder Case: Karan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder and other offenses was justified based on the evidence presented, despite some discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of weapon recovery. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Karan Singh vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1980 Murder Case: Karan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Service Preferences in Constable Recruitment: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Domicile, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Recruitment Law, Recruitment Notification, Reservation Policy, Service Preference, Staff Selection Commission, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Service Preferences in Constable Recruitment: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022) Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 147 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. (authored the judgment) Can the government reject a candidate for a job even if they scored higher marks than those selected, simply

Supreme Court Upholds Service Preferences in Constable Recruitment: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Constable Recruitment in CAPFs: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022)

/ Constable Recruitment, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 14, Domicile Reservation, Hemant Gupta, Judges, OBC Reservation, Recruitment Law, Recruitment Notification, Reservation Policy, Staff Selection Commission, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Constable Recruitment in CAPFs: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022) Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 174 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a candidate’s preference for a specific armed force during recruitment limit their consideration for other forces, despite higher scores?

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Constable Recruitment in CAPFs: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Plot Allotment Due to False Affidavit: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (2022)

/ General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 3(3), Hemant Gupta, Judges, Oaths Act, 1969, Oaths Act, 1969 with Section 3(2), Transfer of Property Act, 1887, Transfer of Property Act, 1887 with Section 111(g), Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976 with Section 14, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Plot Allotment Due to False Affidavit: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (2022) Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2012 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a government authority cancel a plot allotment if the allottee provided

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Plot Allotment Due to False Affidavit: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Adult Trial for Accused in 2011 Robbery Case: Manoj @ Monu vs. State of Haryana (2022)

/ Age Determination, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 with Rule 12, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Adult Trial for Accused in 2011 Robbery Case: Manoj @ Monu vs. State of Haryana (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of juvenility in criminal cases based on conflicting evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Judgment Date: 15 February 2022 Can

Supreme Court Upholds Adult Trial for Accused in 2011 Robbery Case: Manoj @ Monu vs. State of Haryana (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Deposit Rules Under Consumer Protection Act: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV (2022)

/ Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act with Section 23, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Hemant Gupta, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Deposit Rules Under Consumer Protection Act: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of deposit requirements for appeals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vs. the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV Judgment Date: 15 February

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Deposit Rules Under Consumer Protection Act: ECGC Limited vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Split Multiplier in Motor Accident Claims: R. Valli vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (2022)

/ Compensation Calculation, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with Section 166, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Rejects Split Multiplier in Motor Accident Claims: R. Valli vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation in motor accident claims. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Case Name: R. Valli & Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: 10 February

Supreme Court Rejects Split Multiplier in Motor Accident Claims: R. Valli vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Premature Retirement: CISF Employee’s Service Record Scrutinized (2022)

/ Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with Rule 48(1)(b), Fundamental Rules, Fundamental Rules with Rule 56(j), Hemant Gupta, Judges, Premature Retirement, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Service Law with Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, V. Ramasubramanian

Premature Retirement of CISF Head Constable Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government employee’s entire service record, including past adverse remarks, can be considered for premature retirement, even if the employee has been promoted since those remarks. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Central Industrial Security Force vs. HC

Supreme Court Upholds Premature Retirement: CISF Employee’s Service Record Scrutinized (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022)

/ Compensation, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Valuation, Property Law, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquisition. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition. Case Name: Madhukar S/O Govindrao Kamble & Ors. vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors. Judgment Date: January 31, 2022 Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2022 Citation:

Supreme Court Enhances Land Compensation: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation for Land Acquisition: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022)

/ Hemant Gupta, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Market Value, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation for Land Acquisition: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair market value for land acquired for public purposes. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: Madhukar S/O Govindrao Kamble & Ors. vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors. Judgment Date: 31 January 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation for Land Acquisition: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of representative consumer complaints under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Brigade Enterprises Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (17 December 2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 8, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 35(1)(c), Consumer Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Representative Consumer Complaints: Brigade Enterprises Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer complaint can be filed in a representative capacity on behalf of numerous consumers having the same interest, and the criteria for determining “sameness of interest”. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Brigade Enterprises Limited

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of representative consumer complaints under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Brigade Enterprises Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors. (17 December 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top