Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases: CBI vs. Vijayalakshmi (2021)

/ B V Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 109, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2), Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases: CBI vs. Vijayalakshmi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR in corruption cases involving public servants. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases: CBI vs. Vijayalakshmi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Pre-Existing Dispute, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pre-existing dispute, for the purposes of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, includes a situation where an appeal against an arbitral award is dismissed in default but subsequently restored. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority for Regularized Ad Hoc Employees: Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab (28 September 2021)

/ Ad Hoc Appointments, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976, Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class III) Rules 1976 with Rule 9, Regularization, Seniority, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority for Regularized Ad Hoc Employees: Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of seniority for ad hoc employees upon regularization. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Malook Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others Judgment Date: 28 September 2021 Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2021

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority for Regularized Ad Hoc Employees: Malook Singh vs. State of Punjab (28 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies electricity duty on sale to licensee: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (24 September 2021)

/ Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948, Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 with Section 2(b), Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 with Section 2(ee), Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 with Section 3, BV Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Entry 53, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Legislative Competence, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court clarifies electricity duty on sale to licensee: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the sale of electricity by a generator to a licensee is subject to electricity duty under the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy

Supreme Court clarifies electricity duty on sale to licensee: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (24 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata in Property Dispute: Jamia Masjid vs. K V Rudrappa (23 September 2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 23, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 11, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Judges, Res Judicata, Vikram Nath, Wakf Act, 1954, Wakf Act, 1954 with Notifications, Wakf Properties

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata in Property Dispute: Jamia Masjid vs. K V Rudrappa (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Res Judicata in property disputes, particularly concerning representative suits and compromise decrees. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: The Jamia Masjid vs. Sri K V Rudrappa (Since Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021

Supreme Court Clarifies Res Judicata in Property Dispute: Jamia Masjid vs. K V Rudrappa (23 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act in Sri Dorairaj Spintex vs R Chittibabu (22 September 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Conciliation Proceedings, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Employer Rights, Industrial Dispute, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 33, Judges, Labour Law, Vikram Nath, Workmen Rights

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act in Sri Dorairaj Spintex vs R Chittibabu LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically concerning the conditions under which an employer can take disciplinary action against workmen

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act in Sri Dorairaj Spintex vs R Chittibabu (22 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on SBR Imports: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ballarpur Industries (2021)

/ Anti-Dumping Duty, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 111(m), Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section 9A, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Tariff Item 4002, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Restores Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on SBR Imports: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ballarpur Industries (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether anti-dumping duty is applicable on imported Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) when the importer claims it to be a different product (Latex) and the customs department claims it to be SBR based on test reports. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Restores Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on SBR Imports: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ballarpur Industries (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds differential promotion criteria based on educational qualifications: Chandan Banerjee vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh (21 September 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Educational Qualification, Fundamental Rights, Hima Kohli, Judges, Promotion, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Promotion Criteria Based on Educational Qualifications: Chandan Banerjee vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a classification based on educational qualifications for promotion to supernumerary posts within the same cadre is valid under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Chandan Banerjee

Supreme Court upholds differential promotion criteria based on educational qualifications: Chandan Banerjee vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh (21 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Review Petition in Income Tax Exemption Case: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Subros Educational Society (20 September 2021)

/ Delay Condonation, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 254, Income Tax Exemption, Judges, Procedural Law, Review Petition, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Restores Review Petition in Income Tax Exemption Case: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Subros Educational Society (20 September 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a review petition should be restored after a delay. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Exemption. Case Name: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Subros Educational Society. [Judgment Date]: 20 September 2021 Date

Supreme Court Restores Review Petition in Income Tax Exemption Case: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Subros Educational Society (20 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Resolution Plan Approval: Panch Tatva Promoters vs. GPT Steel Industries (2021)

/ Adjudicating Authority, Civil Appeal, Committee of Creditors, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, Resolution Plan, Supreme Court of India, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Resolution Plan Approval: Panch Tatva Promoters vs. GPT Steel Industries (2021) Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2021 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath Can a higher court interfere with a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors before it goes to the Adjudicating

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Resolution Plan Approval: Panch Tatva Promoters vs. GPT Steel Industries (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC: Anjali Rathi & Ors. vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2021)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Sections 25 and 27, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC: Anjali Rathi & Ors. vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) extends to the personal properties of the promoters of a corporate debtor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law, Consumer Law Case Name: Anjali

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Under IBC: Anjali Rathi & Ors. vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Disciplinary Proceedings Allowed: Supreme Court Overturns High Court in Gunda Squad Case (2021)

/ All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 with Rule 3, All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969, All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 with Rule 10, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Hima Kohli, Judges, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Allows Disciplinary Proceedings Against SP for Gunda Squad: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Akhilesh Jha (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a disciplinary inquiry against a government official can be quashed due to delay and alleged vagueness of charges. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs. Akhilesh

Disciplinary Proceedings Allowed: Supreme Court Overturns High Court in Gunda Squad Case (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top