Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment in Railway Contracts: Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Appointment of Arbitrators, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration Law, Breach of contract, Contract Law, General Conditions of Contract, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment in Railway Contracts: Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the correct procedure for appointing arbitrators in disputes arising from railway contracts, especially when the contract specifies the appointment of railway officers as arbitrators. CASE TYPE: This case falls under […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment in Railway Contracts: Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Special Eviction Rights for NRIs under Rent Act: Ram Krishan Grover vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 with Section 13-B, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 with Section 2(dd), Fundamental Rights, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Power to Extend Enactments, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 with Section 87, Ranjan Gogoi, Rights of Non-Resident Indians, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Special Eviction Rights for NRIs under Rent Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which grants special eviction rights to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), is constitutionally valid. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Rent Control Case Name: Ram Krishan Grover and Others vs. Union of India and

Supreme Court Upholds Special Eviction Rights for NRIs under Rent Act: Ram Krishan Grover vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overrules Key Aspects of Finance Act 2017 on Tribunal Appointments and Powers: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019) INSC 877 (13 November 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 110, Constitutional Law with Article 323A, Deepak Gupta, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Finance Act, 2017, Finance Act, 2017 with Section 184, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjiv Khanna, Separation of Powers, Tribunal Appointments

Supreme Court Overrules Key Aspects of Finance Act 2017 on Tribunal Appointments and Powers LEGAL ISSUE: Constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017, specifically regarding tribunal appointments and powers. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Tribunal Law Case Name: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 November 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Overrules Key Aspects of Finance Act 2017 on Tribunal Appointments and Powers: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019) INSC 877 (13 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification Powers of Speaker in Karnataka Defection Case: Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2019) INSC 910 (13 November 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Disqualifications for Membership, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Krishna Murari, N.V. Ramana, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 36, Sanjiv Khanna, Tenth Schedule

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification Powers of Speaker in Karnataka Defection Case LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of the Speaker’s power to disqualify members under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the extent of judicial review in such matters. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Anti-Defection Law Case Name: Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly and

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification Powers of Speaker in Karnataka Defection Case: Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2019) INSC 910 (13 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Detention Period Under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act: State of Maharashtra vs. Balu Waman Patole (2019)

/ Indira Banerjee, Judges, M. R. Shah, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 with Section 13, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 with Section 3

Supreme Court Clarifies Detention Period Under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act: State of Maharashtra vs. Balu Waman Patole (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the detaining authority is required to specify the period of detention in the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law Case Name: State

Supreme Court Clarifies Detention Period Under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act: State of Maharashtra vs. Balu Waman Patole (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Transparency in Judicial Appointments and Asset Declarations (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(a), Constitutional Law with Article 21, D.Y. Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Ranjan Gogoi, Right to Information Act, 2005, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 11, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 2(h), Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 8(1)(j), Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Transparency in Judicial Appointments and Asset Declarations (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the Right to Information with Judicial Independence and Privacy CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Right to Information Case Name: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal Judgment Date: 13 November 2019 Date of the Judgment: 13 November

Supreme Court Clarifies Transparency in Judicial Appointments and Asset Declarations (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Waqf Board’s Petition Due to Extreme Delay in Civil Matters (09 November 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Civil Law, Delay in Filing, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Dismissal of Appeal, Judges, Limitation, Procedural Law, Ranjan Gogoi, S A Bobde, S Abdul Nazeer, Waqf Board

Supreme Court Dismisses Waqf Board’s Petition Due to Extreme Delay Date of the Judgment: 09 November 2019 Citation: SLP (Civil) Diary No.22744/2017 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, S A Bobde, J, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Ashok Bhushan, J, S Abdul Nazeer, J Can a legal appeal be dismissed solely based on an unexplained, inordinate delay?

Supreme Court Dismisses Waqf Board’s Petition Due to Extreme Delay in Civil Matters (09 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the Ayodhya Land Dispute: Title Granted to Deity, Land to Waqf Board (2019)

/ Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 145, Constitutional Law, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Judges, Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 with Section 5, Ranjan Gogoi, S. Abdul Nazeer, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Resolves Ayodhya Dispute: Title Granted to Deity, Land to Waqf Board (2019) Date of the Judgment: 09 November 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1086 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer (Majority Bench) Can a dispute over a piece of land, steeped in centuries of history, be

Supreme Court settles the Ayodhya Land Dispute: Title Granted to Deity, Land to Waqf Board (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Rejects NCLAT Modification in Corporate Insolvency Case (8 November 2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Section 10, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 30, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Rejects NCLAT Modification in Corporate Insolvency Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was justified in modifying a resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on grounds of discrimination among financial creditors. CASE TYPE: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Case Name: Rahul Jain

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Rejects NCLAT Modification in Corporate Insolvency Case (8 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Airman for Habitual Indiscipline: Union of India vs. Abhishek Pandey (2019)

/ Air Force Rules, 1969, Air Force Rules, 1969 with Rule 15(2)(g)(ii), Armed Forces Tribunal, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Airman: Union of India vs. Abhishek Pandey (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second warning is mandatory for discharging a habitual offender from the Indian Air Force, even when the competent authority decides against giving another chance. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Armed Forces) Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Airman for Habitual Indiscipline: Union of India vs. Abhishek Pandey (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 37, Construction Contracts, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 2, Contract Law with Clause 25, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the levy of pre-estimated liquidated damages by a Superintending Engineer, as per a contract clause, is an arbitrable matter or an “excepted matter.” CASE TYPE: Contract/Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) COMPANY vs. OIL

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Pension Benefit by Combining Gramin Dak Sevak Service with Regular Postal Service: Union of India & Ors. vs. Gandiba Behera (08 November 2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 311, Deepak Gupta, Gramin Dak Sevak, Judges, Pension Rules, Ranjan Gogoi, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: 08 November 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1122 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta J., Aniruddha Bose J. Can prior service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) be combined with regular postal service to meet pension eligibility? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a batch of appeals, ultimately

Supreme Court Denies Pension Benefit by Combining Gramin Dak Sevak Service with Regular Postal Service: Union of India & Ors. vs. Gandiba Behera (08 November 2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top