Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Punajb and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail under Sections 22, 25,
Supreme Court: In an insurance repudiation case the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., held that where the insurance policy expressly
Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench comprising Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat*, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., reversed NCDRC’s findings where it had
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that a liability in respect
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that an ad hoc payment made to the workers
“A legislative intent cannot be to leave an employee scot-free though he has indulged into serious misconduct.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran*, JJ., quashed the confiscation order of Customs and Central Excise
Supreme Court: While adjudicating the issue as to whether promotion scheme implemented by office memorandum supersedes recruitment regulations, the Division Bench of
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that to determine State Monopoly for disallowance of
Supreme Court: In a Trademark infringement case, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has ordered in
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sujoy Paul and Arun Kumar Sharma, JJ., held that the Demonstrators and Tutors
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that the formulae for fixing the percentage of
“A push in the right direction is required to accomplish the task of eradicating this evil which has become deeply entrenched in our society.”
Supreme Court: While holding that the term “school children” will include college and university as well while interpreting government memo exempting passengers
Supreme Court: Explaining the provision of remission under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of R.
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ has elaborated on the question as
Supreme Court: In a case where it was alleged that more than one consumer cannot institute a complaint unless they come within
“A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable.”
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ was called upon to decide whether it
“Once the contractor agrees that he shall not be entitled to interest on the amounts payable under the contract, including the interest upon the earnest money and the security deposit, the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings being the creature of the contract has no power to award interest”