(1)
NIMS UNIVERSITY .....Appellant Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
09/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Cut-Off Percentile for Admission – Reduction Sought – Petitioners requested a reduction in the cut-off percentile for admission to Super Specialty medical courses due to 940 vacant seats for the academic year 2021-2022. The plea was based on the reduction in cut-off percentiles in previous years and a significant number of vacant seats. The court declined the reduction, emphasizing the...
(2)
V. PRAKASH @ G.N.V. PRAKASH .....Appellant Vs.
M/S. P.S. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU AND SONS' CHARITIES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
09/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Trusteeship – Eligibility Criteria – Residence Requirement – The appellant, a Green Card holder of the United States, contested his disqualification from the position of founder trustee of the respondent-Trust on the grounds of not residing within the "Madras Presidency" as required by the Scheme of Administration (SOA). The Trial Court found the appellant qualified, co...
(3)
MIHAN INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant Vs.
GMR AIRPORTS LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
09/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bidding Process – Annulment – Justification – The appeals challenge the annulment of the bidding process for the Nagpur Airport project. The Court considered whether the annulment was arbitrary and without valid reason, focusing on the terms of the RFQ and RFP and the statutory provisions under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 [Paras 1-17].
Letter of Award (...
(4)
KISHOR GHANSHYAMSA PARALIKAR (DEAD) .....Appellant Vs.
BALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN MANGRUL(NATH) AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
09/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Specific Performance – Extension of Time – Consent Decree – The appellant sought the extension of time for payment of sale consideration under a consent decree. The Trial Court allowed the extension, which was later challenged and set aside by the High Court. The Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the discretionary power of the court under Sectio...
(5)
COX AND KINGS LIMITED .....Appellant Vs.
SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arbitration – Group of Companies Doctrine – The petition called into question the applicability of the Group of Companies Doctrine in Indian arbitration law, particularly under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The doctrine's relevance, interpretation, and the extent to which it can bind non-signatory parties to an arbitration agreement were examined and refe...
(6)
SATHYANATH AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
SAROJAMANI .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Res Judicata – Preliminary Issue – The trial court was directed by the High Court to frame the preliminary issue of res judicata, a mixed question of law and fact. The Supreme Court held that such an approach is undesirable for ensuring speedy disposal of cases. Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC mandates the court to pronounce judgments on all issues unless it pertains to the jurisdiction of...
(7)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant Vs.
GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Acquisition Proceedings – Lapsing Under 2013 Act – The appeal examines if the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and concluded, can lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when challenged by a subsequent purchaser. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act [Paras 1-44].
&nb...
(8)
DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH SECRETARY LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Acquisition Proceedings – Lapsing Under 2013 Act – Subsequent Purchaser – The appeal examines the entitlement of a subsequent purchaser to claim the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act [Paras 1-11].
Twin Conditions for ...
(9)
MUZAFFAR HUSAIN .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
06/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Judicial Misconduct – Disciplinary Proceedings – The appellant, a judicial officer, challenged the punishment order issued by the State based on the High Court’s decision following an enquiry report. The Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the need for judicial officers to maintain high standards of integrity, honesty, and probity. It was determined that the...