Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court: In a case where the Development Plan was finalized in the year 2002, but the same was never implemented nor
It is the oft-repeated and a salutary principle of law that fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ was deciding an issue relating to
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi CJ and Sudesh Bansal J ranted interim relief and stayed the provisional attachment
National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) expressed that, when a Statute
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that failure on the part of the builder
Supreme Court: In a case relating to Corporate Insolvency, the Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee* and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., quashed the
Supreme Court: After the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association approached the Court in light of the spread of Omicron, the new variant of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vishal Dhagat, J. allowed an arbitration appeal against an impugned order passed by the First ADJ of Balaghat
Supreme Court: In a case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had condoned a delay of 1011 days even though no sufficient
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., held that, “Mere fact that the boundary walls had been built by the defendants cannot be
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S., J. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal wherein the refund was rejected
The Supreme Court adopted a bright-line standard which obviates uncertainty on the legal position before the consumer fora and obviates further litigation.
Supreme Court: Explaining the difference between acquiescence and delay and laches, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., allowed an arbitration petition by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the contesting parties.
Supreme Court: In an important ruling on Land Acquisition and Requisition law, the bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has
Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that receipt
“The IBC, as a prescriptive mechanism, affecting rights of stakeholders who are not necessarily parties to the proceedings, mandates diligence on the part of applicants who are aggrieved by the outcome of their litigation.”
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide
by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 73