⚖
Loading…
Loading…
Indian case law by case name, citation, provision or legal issue, with the case summary, the judgment text where we hold it and the provisions it applies.
1,301–1,320 · Page 66 of 500
Supreme Court of India8 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 857 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2173
a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or curate a panel of arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows a government entity to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or majority of the arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal is violative of Article 14 of the Co
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024
Indian case law by case name, citation, provision or legal issue, with the case summary, the judgment text where we hold it and the provisions it applies.
1,301–1,320 · Page 66 of 500
Supreme Court of India8 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 857 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2173
a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or curate a panel of arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows a government entity to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or majority of the arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal is violative of Article 14 of the Co
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024
2024 INSC 854 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 202
Issue arose whether there was an “error apparent on the face of the record” for the purpose of entertaining the review petition; whether law laid down in Canon India’s case as regards the power of the DRI to issue show cause notices could be said to be the correct statement of law; whether officers of DRI are the proper officers for the purposes of s.28 of the Customs Act, 1962; whether the introduction of s.28(11) vide the Validation Act of 2011 which retrospectively validates the show cause notices issued u/s.28 with effect from 06.07.2011, is discriminatory and arbitrary for not curing the
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 853 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 530
Issue arose, as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant’s application u/s.11 of the Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms of Clause 18.12 of the Master Services Agreement executed between the parties.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 852 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2039
Whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment which was to be made under the Resolution Plan, within 180 days from the Effective Date, in contravention of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2024, the terms of the Resolution Plan and the provisions of law; In other words, whether the impugned order of the NCLAT allowing the adjustment of the PBG in lieu of payment of the first tranche could be said to be perverse; Whether the non-implementation of the Resolution Plan by the Respondent No.1-Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) necessari
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 851 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 133
(i) Whether a fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent could be said to be maintainable more particularly when no liberty to file a fresh application was granted by the High Court at the time of withdrawal of the first application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996; (ii) whether the fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996 filed by the respondent on 09.12.2022 could be said to be time-barred. If yes, whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In other words, whether the period spent by the responde
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 850 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1142
(a) Whether the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 maintainable in India; (b) whether seat of arbitration designated under the aforesaid Distributorship Agreement is in India; (c) whether the arbitration agreement could be said to be governed by the Indian laws.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 849 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 108
Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of the Shareholders Agreement between the parties. Whether the reference under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, should be declined by examining whether the substantive claims of the petitioner are ex facie and hopelessly time barred.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 848 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 68
Whether, the Explanation(s) appended to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 respectively are unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 847 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 28
(a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end; (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played; (c) Whether the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject; (d) Whether recruiting bodies can devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting process; (e) Whether the procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule can be violated; (f) Whether appointment could be denied even after placement in select list.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 846 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 641
Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor girl pursuant thereto based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of the victim arrived
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 845 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 700
Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory seat in the ensuing academic year.
Supreme Court of India6 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 843 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 510
The appellant filed complaints against the respondents and others u/s.44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents and other accused persons. However, the High Court held that it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub-section (1) of s.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents.
Supreme Court of India6 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 841 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 523
Whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or under a lesser offence.
Supreme Court of India6 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 840 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 541
(i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act
Supreme Court of India22 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 84 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2 in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 839 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 489
The appellant-NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority filed a claim of INR 06.29 Crores which was admitted by the Respondent No.01- Resolution Professional. The NCLT vide order dated 05.10.2020, granted only INR 50 Lakhs to the appellant against its admitted claim of INR 06.29 Crores. In the instant appeals, the challenge is to the judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by NCLAT which were preferred by the appellant being the operational creditor impugning the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 838 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 498
Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 836 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187
Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board at AIIMS, Nagpur holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was in accordance with prescribed procedures.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 835 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1
(1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned privately and not by the State.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 834 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1
Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis
2024 INSC 854 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 202
Issue arose whether there was an “error apparent on the face of the record” for the purpose of entertaining the review petition; whether law laid down in Canon India’s case as regards the power of the DRI to issue show cause notices could be said to be the correct statement of law; whether officers of DRI are the proper officers for the purposes of s.28 of the Customs Act, 1962; whether the introduction of s.28(11) vide the Validation Act of 2011 which retrospectively validates the show cause notices issued u/s.28 with effect from 06.07.2011, is discriminatory and arbitrary for not curing the
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 853 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 530
Issue arose, as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant’s application u/s.11 of the Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms of Clause 18.12 of the Master Services Agreement executed between the parties.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 852 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2039
Whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment which was to be made under the Resolution Plan, within 180 days from the Effective Date, in contravention of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2024, the terms of the Resolution Plan and the provisions of law; In other words, whether the impugned order of the NCLAT allowing the adjustment of the PBG in lieu of payment of the first tranche could be said to be perverse; Whether the non-implementation of the Resolution Plan by the Respondent No.1-Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) necessari
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 851 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 133
(i) Whether a fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent could be said to be maintainable more particularly when no liberty to file a fresh application was granted by the High Court at the time of withdrawal of the first application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996; (ii) whether the fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996 filed by the respondent on 09.12.2022 could be said to be time-barred. If yes, whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In other words, whether the period spent by the responde
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 850 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1142
(a) Whether the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 maintainable in India; (b) whether seat of arbitration designated under the aforesaid Distributorship Agreement is in India; (c) whether the arbitration agreement could be said to be governed by the Indian laws.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 849 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 108
Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of the Shareholders Agreement between the parties. Whether the reference under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, should be declined by examining whether the substantive claims of the petitioner are ex facie and hopelessly time barred.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 848 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 68
Whether, the Explanation(s) appended to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 respectively are unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 847 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 28
(a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end; (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played; (c) Whether the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject; (d) Whether recruiting bodies can devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting process; (e) Whether the procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule can be violated; (f) Whether appointment could be denied even after placement in select list.
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 846 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 641
Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor girl pursuant thereto based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of the victim arrived
Supreme Court of India7 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 845 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 700
Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory seat in the ensuing academic year.
Supreme Court of India6 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 843 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 510
The appellant filed complaints against the respondents and others u/s.44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents and other accused persons. However, the High Court held that it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub-section (1) of s.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents.
Supreme Court of India6 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 841 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 523
Whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or under a lesser offence.
Supreme Court of India6 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 840 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 541
(i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act
Supreme Court of India22 Jan 2024Full text
2024 INSC 84 · [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2 in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 839 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 489
The appellant-NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority filed a claim of INR 06.29 Crores which was admitted by the Respondent No.01- Resolution Professional. The NCLT vide order dated 05.10.2020, granted only INR 50 Lakhs to the appellant against its admitted claim of INR 06.29 Crores. In the instant appeals, the challenge is to the judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by NCLAT which were preferred by the appellant being the operational creditor impugning the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 838 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 498
Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
Supreme Court of India25 Oct 2024Full text
2024 INSC 836 · [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187
Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board at AIIMS, Nagpur holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was in accordance with prescribed procedures.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 835 · [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1
(1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned privately and not by the State.
Supreme Court of India5 Nov 2024Full text
2024 INSC 834 · [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1
Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not.
Also on Law on Tips: Bare Acts · Legal news and analysis