Supreme Court Temporarily Reinstates Ban on Firework Sales in Delhi NCR for Diwali 2017

/ A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre, Air Pollution, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 48A, Constitutional Law with Article 51A(g), Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Fundamental Duties, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should reimpose a ban on the sale of fireworks in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) for Diwali 2017, considering the severe air pollution caused by fireworks. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: Arjun Gopal and Others vs. Union of India and Others Judgment Date: 9th October 2017 […]

Supreme Court Temporarily Reinstates Ban on Firework Sales in Delhi NCR for Diwali 2017 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Committee Constitution under Minimum Wages Act: Kerala Private Hospital Association vs. State of Kerala (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Committee Constitution, Judges, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with Section 9, R.K. Agrawal

The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether an employee of a private hospital can represent the employer on a committee constituted under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Court ruled that such representation is valid. This judgment clarifies the scope of employer representation in minimum wage committees. Citation: (2017) INSC 929 Judges:

Supreme Court Upholds Committee Constitution under Minimum Wages Act: Kerala Private Hospital Association vs. State of Kerala (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Bhagwan Jagannath Markad vs. State of Maharashtra (2016)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with FIR, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 154, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, V. Gopala Gowda

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellants on the basis of evidence available on record, particularly when the trial court had acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Murder, Unlawful Assembly Case Name: Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors.

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Bhagwan Jagannath Markad vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Illegal Sale of Poppy Straw: Girish Raghunath Mehta vs. Inspector of Customs (2016)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, C. Nagappan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 42, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 43, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 67

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction for illegal sale of poppy straw under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is sustainable when the contraband was recovered from a public place and the accused made a statement under Section 67 of the Act. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Case

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Illegal Sale of Poppy Straw: Girish Raghunath Mehta vs. Inspector of Customs (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Ex-Gratia Payment Despite Bank’s Legal Victory in Loan Recovery Case

/ Anil R. Dave, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 65, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Loan Recovery, Property Auction

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a bank, having legally acquired a property through auction for loan recovery, is obligated to share the surplus from the property’s subsequent sale with the original borrower, especially when the borrower faces extreme financial distress and health issues. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal. Case Name: State Bank of Travancore & Ors. vs. R.

Supreme Court Orders Ex-Gratia Payment Despite Bank’s Legal Victory in Loan Recovery Case Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Necessary Parties in Writ Petitions Challenging Tribunal Orders: M.S. Kazi vs. Muslim Education Society (2016)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, D.Y. Chandrachud, Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972, Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 with Section 38, Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 with Section 39, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Tribunal, Service Law with Writ Petition, T.S. Thakur

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tribunal is a necessary party in a writ petition challenging its order. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: M.S. Kazi vs. Muslim Education Society & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 22 August 2016 Date of the Judgment: 22 August 2016 Citation: (2016) INSC 798 Judges: T.S. Thakur, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y.

Supreme Court Clarifies Necessary Parties in Writ Petitions Challenging Tribunal Orders: M.S. Kazi vs. Muslim Education Society (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes attachment order against deceased’s property: U. Subhadramma vs. State of A.P. (2016)

/ Amitava Roy, Attachment of Property, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 with Clause 13, Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 with Clause 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 471, Judges, S. A. Bobde

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether property of a person who died during a criminal trial can be attached under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: U. Subhadramma & Ors. vs State of A.P. rep. by Pub. Prosecutor & Anr. Judgment Date: 4th July, 2016 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 4th July,

Supreme Court quashes attachment order against deceased’s property: U. Subhadramma vs. State of A.P. (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Hire Purchase Breach: Sundaram Finance vs. Noorjahan Beevi (2016)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Ashok Bhushan, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Hire Purchase Agreement, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 55

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the limitation period for filing a suit for recovery of dues in a hire-purchase agreement breach. CASE TYPE: Civil (Hire Purchase Agreement) Case Name: M/S. Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Noorjahan Beevi and Another [Judgment Date]: 29th June 2016 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 29th June 2016 Citation: (2016) INSC 657 Judges: Justice

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Hire Purchase Breach: Sundaram Finance vs. Noorjahan Beevi (2016) Read Post »

Lease Renewal Not Automatic: Supreme Court Rules in Delhi Development Authority vs. M/S Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (2016)

/ Arun Mishra, Delhi Development Act, 1957, Delhi Development Act, 1957 with Section 21, Delhi Development Act, 1957 with Section 22, Judges, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 with Section 2(e), Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 with Section 2(g), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 116, V. Gopala Gowda

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether acceptance of rent by a lessor after the expiry of a lease period automatically renews the lease. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Lease Dispute Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. M/S Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 12th April, 2016 Can a lease be automatically renewed simply because the landlord accepted rent

Lease Renewal Not Automatic: Supreme Court Rules in Delhi Development Authority vs. M/S Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Public Servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act for Bank Officials (23 February 2016)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 46A, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 409, Judges, Offences by Public Servants, Prafulla C. Pant, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 2(c), Public Duty, Ranjan Gogoi

Can officials of a private bank be considered “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving alleged corruption at Global Trust Bank. This judgment clarifies the scope of “public servant” definition, particularly in the context of banking regulations. The bench comprised Justices

Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘Public Servant’ under Prevention of Corruption Act for Bank Officials (23 February 2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court enhances land compensation: Om Parkash & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2016)

/ Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4(1), Rohinton Fali Nariman

Can a court enhance land compensation when the Land Acquisition Collector has undervalued the land? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning land acquisition in Haryana. This judgment clarifies the principles for determining fair compensation for land acquired by the government. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justices Kurian

Supreme Court enhances land compensation: Om Parkash & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2016) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles rights of alienee in re-granted service inam land: N. Venkateshappa vs. Munemma & Ors (2016)

/ Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel, Judges, Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961, Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 with Section 4, Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 with Section 5, Karnataka Village Offices Act, 1961 with Section 7, Transfer of Property Act, Transfer of Property Act with Section 43, Uday Umesh Lalit, V. Gopala Gowda

Can an alienee of service inam land claim title after the land is re-granted to the original holder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question. The court considered the rights of alienees when the alienation occurred between February 1, 1963, and August 7, 1978. The bench comprised Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Uday

Supreme Court settles rights of alienee in re-granted service inam land: N. Venkateshappa vs. Munemma & Ors (2016) Read Post »

Scroll to Top