Natural Justice

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Cantonment Board’s Demolition Notices: Cantonment Board, Meerut & Anr. vs. Afzal (23 April 2019)

/ Administrative Law, Cantonments Act, 1924, Cantonments Act, 1924 with Section 185, Cantonments Act, 1924 with Section 274, Cantonments Act, 2006, Cantonments Act, 2006 with Section 360, Judges, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

Cantonment Board’s Demolition Notices Quashed: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2019 Citation: Not Available in the source. Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can a local authority issue demolition notices without properly considering objections? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch […]

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Cantonment Board’s Demolition Notices: Cantonment Board, Meerut & Anr. vs. Afzal (23 April 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice: NCLAT Order Set Aside in Insolvency Case (8 March 2019)

/ Audi Alteram Partem, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Natural Justice, NCLAT Rules, 2016

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice: NCLAT Order Set Aside in Insolvency Case LEGAL ISSUE: Violation of natural justice principles, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law, specifically under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Case Name: Jai Balaji Industries Limited vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice: NCLAT Order Set Aside in Insolvency Case (8 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Industrial Dispute for Fresh Hearing: Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers Association vs. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Mazdoor Sangh (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 10(1), Industrial Tribunal, Judges, Labour Law, Natural Justice, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Remands Industrial Dispute for Fresh Hearing: Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers Association vs. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Mazdoor Sangh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an ex-parte award by the Industrial Tribunal should be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing when the affected party was not given an opportunity to

Supreme Court Remands Industrial Dispute for Fresh Hearing: Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Dealers Association vs. Sanyojak Bundi Zila Petrol Pump Mazdoor Sangh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Review of Financial Upgrade and Promotion for CSIR Employee: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Annual Confidential Reports (ACR), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Financial Upgradation, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Natural Justice, Promotion, Service Law

Supreme Court Orders Review of Financial Upgrade and Promotion for CSIR Employee: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-communication of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) to an employee affects their right to financial upgradation and promotion. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Orders Review of Financial Upgrade and Promotion for CSIR Employee: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Commissioner’s Authority, Sets Aside High Court’s Remarks in Liquor License Case (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Administrative Law, Appellate Authority, Bias, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Judicial Review, Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 with Section 23, Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 with Section 24, Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 with Section 54

Supreme Court Upholds Commissioner’s Authority, Sets Aside High Court’s Remarks in Liquor License Case (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can pass adverse remarks against an appellate authority and issue anticipatory directions in a matter related to liquor licenses. CASE TYPE: Excise Law, Administrative Law Case Name: Manish S. Pardasani (M/s Wine Kornder) etc.

Supreme Court Upholds Commissioner’s Authority, Sets Aside High Court’s Remarks in Liquor License Case (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Legal Assistance in Summary Court Martial: Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India (2018)

/ Army Rules, 1954, Army Rules, 1954 with Rule 129, Constitutional Law, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Summary Court Martial

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Legal Assistance in Summary Court Martial: Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India (2018) Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 1088 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can a soldier be denied legal representation during a Summary Court Martial? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Legal Assistance in Summary Court Martial: Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case: Johra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) INSC 1025 (03 December 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 1025 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a court issue orders affecting parties without giving them a chance to be heard? The Supreme Court recently addressed this fundamental

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order for Not Hearing All Parties in Land Encroachment Case: Johra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) INSC 1025 (03 December 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes ‘Severe Displeasure’ penalty and orders promotion for Army Officer: Union of India vs. Col. A.D. Nargolkar (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Armed Forces Tribunal, Ashok Bhushan, Court of Inquiry, Judges, Military Law, Military Law with Army Rule 180, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Service Law

Supreme Court quashes ‘Severe Displeasure’ penalty and orders promotion for Army Officer: Union of India vs. Col. A.D. Nargolkar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Court of Inquiry (COI) adhered to the principles of natural justice and Army Rule 180 while imposing a ‘Severe Displeasure (Recordable)’ penalty on an Army Officer. CASE TYPE: Armed Forces Tribunal

Supreme Court quashes ‘Severe Displeasure’ penalty and orders promotion for Army Officer: Union of India vs. Col. A.D. Nargolkar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs review of penalty calculation for unauthorized bandwidth use: Union of India vs. Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd. (2018) INSC 868

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Administrative Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Review of Orders, Show Cause Notice, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Telecom Law, Telegraph Rules, Unified Access Services License (UASL)

Supreme Court directs review of penalty calculation for unauthorized bandwidth use: Union of India vs. Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd. (2018) INSC 868 Date of the Judgment: 03 October 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 868 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Can the government levy penalties and interest based on notifications without providing evidence

Supreme Court directs review of penalty calculation for unauthorized bandwidth use: Union of India vs. Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd. (2018) INSC 868 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Disciplinary Inquiry: Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ashok Bhushan, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 with Section 11(1), Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 with Rule 27, Departmental Inquiry, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Disciplinary Inquiry: Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) Date of the Judgment: 02 July 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 605 Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored the judgment) Can a disciplinary inquiry be deemed fair if the Inquiry Officer also acts as the prosecutor?

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Disciplinary Inquiry: Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Land Dispute: Ashim Ranjan Das vs. Shibu Bodhak (2018)

/ Intermediary, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Vesting of Estates, West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 with Section 44(2a)

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Land Dispute: Ashim Ranjan Das vs. Shibu Bodhak (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a land dispute case should be re-heard by the Land Tribunal for violation of natural justice CASE TYPE: Land Dispute Case Name: Ashim Ranjan Das (D) BY LRS. vs. Shibu Bodhak & ORS. [Judgment Date]: April 05,

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Hearing in Land Dispute: Ashim Ranjan Das vs. Shibu Bodhak (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Show Cause Notice Before Termination in Service Matter: Lakshmi Narain Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

/ Administrative Law, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Navin Sinha, Principles of Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Service Law, Show Cause Notice, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Directs Show Cause Notice Before Termination in Service Matter: Lakshmi Narain Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 266 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can an employee be terminated from service without being given a chance to explain their case? The

Supreme Court Directs Show Cause Notice Before Termination in Service Matter: Lakshmi Narain Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top