Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Filling Vacancies in Public Service: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao (2019)

/ Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure with Rule 6, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure with Rule 7, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Filling Vacancies in Public Service: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of rules regarding filling vacancies after a selected candidate does not join. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao & Ors. Judgment Date: 11 […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Filling Vacancies in Public Service: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies disability pension for Air Force officers with less than 20% disability: Union of India vs. Wing Commander S.P. Rathore (2019)

/ Air Force Regulations, Deepak Gupta, Defence Service Regulations Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, Defence Service Regulations Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 with Regulation 37(a), Disability Pension, Judges, Ministry of Defence Circulars, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies disability pension for Air Force officers with less than 20% disability: Union of India vs. Wing Commander S.P. Rathore (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an Air Force officer who has superannuated from service and has a disability less than 20% is entitled to disability pension. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of

Supreme Court clarifies disability pension for Air Force officers with less than 20% disability: Union of India vs. Wing Commander S.P. Rathore (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1982 Murder Case: Ramji Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 157, Deepak Gupta, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1982 Murder Case: Ramji Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) Date of the Judgment: December 11, 2019 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s acquittal based on a different interpretation of the evidence? The

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 1982 Murder Case: Ramji Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the date for calculation of Premium FSI Charges in building plan approvals: Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vs. D. Rajan Dev (2019) INSC 1128 (11 December 2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Regulations, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Regulations with Regulation 36, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Premium FSI, R. Banumathi

Premium FSI Charges: Supreme Court Decides on Applicable Date for Calculation Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1128 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a builder be charged Premium FSI rates based on the date of application or the date of approval? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court settles the date for calculation of Premium FSI Charges in building plan approvals: Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vs. D. Rajan Dev (2019) INSC 1128 (11 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Summons of Husband in Dowry Death Case: Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs. State of UP (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Criminal Procedure, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Allows Summons of Husband in Dowry Death Case: Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs. State of UP (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trial court can summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on evidence presented during the trial, even if that person was not

Supreme Court Allows Summons of Husband in Dowry Death Case: Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs. State of UP (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dacoity Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony: Raja vs. State (2019)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 396, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dacoity Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony: Raja vs. State (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether eyewitness testimony is sufficient for conviction in a dacoity case, especially when there are claims of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the Test Identification Parade (TIP). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Dacoity Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dacoity Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony: Raja vs. State (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996: BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC LTD. (2019) INSC 1052 (10 December 2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 13, Judges, R.F. Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996 Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1052 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a contractual clause specifying a venue for arbitration proceedings also be considered the “seat” of arbitration, thereby determining which courts have jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996: BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC LTD. (2019) INSC 1052 (10 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Driver with 100% Disability Under Workmen’s Compensation Act (10 December 2019)

/ Functional Disability, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Loss of Earning Capacity, Uday Umesh Lalit, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 with Section 4

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Driver with 100% Disability Under Workmen’s Compensation Act LEGAL ISSUE: Assessment of functional disability and compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for a driver who can no longer work due to injuries. CASE TYPE: Workmen’s Compensation. Case Name: Sri Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Driver with 100% Disability Under Workmen’s Compensation Act (10 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee (2019) – Employee Conduct

/ A.S. Bopanna, Employee Conduct, Fundamental Rules, Fundamental Rules with Rule 56, Fundamental Rules with Rule 67, Fundamental Rules with Rule 68, Judges, R. Banumathi, Retiral Benefits, Service Law, Voluntary Retirement

Supreme Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee (2019) – Employee Conduct LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who joins another service without proper approval and without getting her leave sanctioned is entitled to retiral benefits from her previous employer. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh &

Supreme Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee (2019) – Employee Conduct Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Multiplier for Bachelor’s Death in Motor Accident Claims: Kunjan Sadana vs. Mahesh Kumar (2019)

/ Compensation Calculation, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 166, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Multiplier for Bachelor’s Death in Motor Accident Claims: Kunjan Sadana vs. Mahesh Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the correct multiplier for calculating compensation in motor accident claims involving the death of a bachelor. CASE TYPE: Motor Accident Compensation Case Name: Kunjan Sadana & Anr. vs. Mahesh Kumar & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court clarifies Multiplier for Bachelor’s Death in Motor Accident Claims: Kunjan Sadana vs. Mahesh Kumar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 195, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 181, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 182, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Offences Relating to False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the investigation into a rape allegation was fair and whether false statements made before the court warrant contempt proceedings. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: ABCD v. Union of India Judgment Date: 10 December 2019 Date

Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer for Inadequate Performance: Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Compulsory Retirement, Judges, Judicial Officers, Navin Sinha, Service Law, U.P. Fundamental Rules, U.P. Fundamental Rules with Rule 56(C)

Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer Upheld: Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) Date of the Judgment: December 10, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 978 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can a judicial officer be compulsorily retired based on past performance and a censure entry? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer for Inadequate Performance: Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top