Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025)

Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promotions to the post of District Judge can be solely based on a merit list after candidates have qualified the suitability test. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dharmendra […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025)

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring basic sanitation and hygiene in court premises as a fundamental right. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 January 2025 Date of the Judgment: 15

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Specific Performance Suit Not Barred by Prior Injunction Suit: Cuddalore Powergen vs. Chemplast Cuddalore (2025) INSC 73

Specific Performance Suit Not Barred by Prior Injunction Suit: Cuddalore Powergen vs. Chemplast Cuddalore (2025) INSC 73 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by a prior suit for permanent injunction concerning the same property. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Contract Law, Specific Performance Case Name: Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd

Specific Performance Suit Not Barred by Prior Injunction Suit: Cuddalore Powergen vs. Chemplast Cuddalore (2025) INSC 73 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: My Preferred Transformation vs. Faridabad Implements (2025)

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: My Preferred Transformation vs. Faridabad Implements (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Section 4, to the condonable period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: My Preferred Transformation &

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: My Preferred Transformation vs. Faridabad Implements (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala: Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala (2025) INSC 70

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala Date of the Judgment: January 10, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 70 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Can prior teaching experience before obtaining a super-speciality degree be counted towards promotion eligibility for medical faculty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala: Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala (2025) INSC 70 Read Post »

Wife’s Right to Maintenance Upheld: Supreme Court Rules on Section 125 CrPC and Restitution Decrees (2025)

Supreme Court Upholds Wife’s Maintenance Rights Despite Restitution Decree LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @

Wife’s Right to Maintenance Upheld: Supreme Court Rules on Section 125 CrPC and Restitution Decrees (2025) Read Post »

MSME Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Not Mandatory for Section 18 Reference (2025 INSC 54)

Supreme Court clarifies MSME dispute resolution: Registration not mandatory for Section 18 reference LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior registration under Section 8 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is a mandatory requirement for referring a dispute to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Commercial/MSME

MSME Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Not Mandatory for Section 18 Reference (2025 INSC 54) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Contract Dispute: State of West Bengal vs. PAM Developments (2025)

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Contract Dispute: State of West Bengal vs. PAM Developments (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a subsequent debarment order constitutes a continuous cause of action allowing for amendment of a plaint in an existing suit, and whether a fresh notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Contract Dispute: State of West Bengal vs. PAM Developments (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Goverdhan & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025)

Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Goverdhan & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Date of the Judgment: January 9, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 47 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide if the intention to kill is not

Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Goverdhan & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46

Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to an accused in a cross-case where the other group has already been granted such benefit, given that both cases arise from the same

Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 143 of the Railways Act in cases of unauthorised e-ticket sales: Inspector, Railway Protection Force vs. Mathew K Cherian (2025) INSC 51 (09 January 2025)

Supreme Court Interprets Section 143 of the Railways Act: Unauthorised Ticket Sales (2025) Date of the Judgment: 09 January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 51 Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Can authorized railway agents be prosecuted under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 for unauthorized actions like creating multiple user IDs

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 143 of the Railways Act in cases of unauthorised e-ticket sales: Inspector, Railway Protection Force vs. Mathew K Cherian (2025) INSC 51 (09 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court nullifies ex-parte arbitration awards in service dispute: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Pandey (2025) INSC 48

Supreme Court nullifies ex-parte arbitration awards in service dispute: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Pandey (2025) INSC 48 LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of ex-parte arbitration awards and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Arbitration Law. Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. R.K. Pandey and Another [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court nullifies ex-parte arbitration awards in service dispute: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Pandey (2025) INSC 48 Read Post »

Scroll to Top