Supreme Court clarifies Driving License Requirements for Light Motor Vehicles and Transport Vehicles: Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) INSC 611 (3 July 2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 10, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 2(21), Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “light motor vehicle” and “transport vehicle” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. CASE TYPE: Motor Vehicle Law. Case Name: Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. [Judgment Date]: 3 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 3 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 611 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Amitava Roy, J., Sanjay […]

Supreme Court clarifies Driving License Requirements for Light Motor Vehicles and Transport Vehicles: Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) INSC 611 (3 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes MCI’s directive on NRI quota in Manipal University: Manipal University vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Deemed University, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Medical Council Act, Medical Council Act with Section 10-A, Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, S.A. Bobde, University Grants Commission Act

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Medical Council of India (MCI) has the authority to regulate the admission of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students in medical colleges. CASE TYPE: Education Law; Regulatory Law Case Name: Manipal University & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. Judgment Date: July 3, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 3, 2017

Supreme Court quashes MCI’s directive on NRI quota in Manipal University: Manipal University vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court: Ineligible Arbitrator Cannot Nominate Successor in Arbitration Cases (03 July 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 12, Dipak Misra, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an individual disqualified from acting as an arbitrator can nominate another arbitrator. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. Judgment Date: 03 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5306 of 2017 (@ S.L.P. (C) NO. 22912 OF 2016)

Supreme Court: Ineligible Arbitrator Cannot Nominate Successor in Arbitration Cases (03 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court prioritizes child’s welfare over comity of courts in custody battle: Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 14, Guardianship, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the principle of comity of courts should override the paramount welfare of the child in international child custody disputes. CASE TYPE: Child Custody, Habeas Corpus Case Name: Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [Judgment Date]: July 3, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: July 3, 2017 Citation:

Supreme Court prioritizes child’s welfare over comity of courts in custody battle: Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Kerala’s Medical Admission Policy: Non-Keralites’ Eligibility Challenged (24 August 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Medical Admissions, Minority Institutions

Can a state government prioritize its residents for medical college admissions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning admissions to medical colleges in Kerala. This case highlights the tension between state-level preferences and the rights of non-residents to access education. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices

Supreme Court Upholds Kerala’s Medical Admission Policy: Non-Keralites’ Eligibility Challenged (24 August 2017) Read Post »

Surcharge on Power Supply: Supreme Court Rules Against Arc Furnace Industries in Waryam Steel Castings Case (2017)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 61, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Tariff Determination

Can electricity providers levy a surcharge on industries that don’t upgrade their power infrastructure? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving arc furnace industries in Punjab. The court upheld the surcharge, finding it a justified measure to offset costs incurred by the power corporation. This judgment clarifies the power of

Surcharge on Power Supply: Supreme Court Rules Against Arc Furnace Industries in Waryam Steel Castings Case (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 61, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Regulatory Law, Regulatory Power, Statutory Authority, Tariff Determination

Can a regulatory body impose a surcharge on industries for not complying with voltage supply norms? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving arc furnace industries in Punjab. This case clarifies the extent of regulatory power in enforcing electricity supply standards and the validity of surcharges imposed for non-compliance. The

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017)

/ Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 61, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 62, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the levy of surcharge on arc furnace industries for drawing power at 11 KV supply without switching to 66 KV supply line is valid. CASE TYPE: Electricity Tariff Dispute Case Name: Waryam Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: 19 June 2017 Can a regulatory body impose

Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award in Contempt Case (19 June 2017)

/ Contempt of Court, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Working Journalists Act, 1955, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 16, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 17

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation and implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award. CASE TYPE: Contempt and Service Law Case Name: Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta Judgment Date: 19 June 2017 Can newspaper establishments avoid paying the wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a

Supreme Court Clarifies Implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award in Contempt Case (19 June 2017) Read Post »

Majithia Wage Board Award: Supreme Court clarifies implementation in Contempt Case (2017)

/ Contempt of Court, Contempt of Court with Wilful Disobedience, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Working Journalists Act, 1955, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 16, Working Journalists Act, 1955 with Section 17

LEGAL ISSUE: Implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award for working journalists and non-journalist employees. CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court / Labour Law Case Name: Avishek Raja & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta Judgment Date: 19 June 2017 Can newspaper establishments be held in contempt for not fully implementing the Majithia Wage Board Award? The Supreme

Majithia Wage Board Award: Supreme Court clarifies implementation in Contempt Case (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Damages for Wrongful Termination: Kanchan Udyog Ltd. vs. United Spirits Ltd. (2017)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 8, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party can claim damages for loss of anticipated profits and costs for plant installation after a contract termination. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Commercial Dispute Case Name: Kanchan Udyog Limited vs. United Spirits Limited [Judgment Date]: June 19, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: June 19, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Supreme Court Denies Damages for Wrongful Termination: Kanchan Udyog Ltd. vs. United Spirits Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Extinguishment of Redemption Right After Auction Sale: Allokam Peddabbayya vs. Allahabad Bank (2017)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIV, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rights of Mortgagor, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 60, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 91

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the right to redeem a mortgaged property is extinguished after an auction sale and issuance of a sale certificate, even if the purchaser of the equity of redemption was not a party to the foreclosure suit. CASE TYPE: Civil (Mortgage Redemption) Case Name: Allokam Peddabbayya and another vs. Allahabad Bank and others

Supreme Court Upholds Extinguishment of Redemption Right After Auction Sale: Allokam Peddabbayya vs. Allahabad Bank (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top