Articles

Orders and Judgments Duration March 23, 2019- April 07, 2019

The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that the principle of Res Judicata is applicable to Writ Petitions as well. In P. Bandopadhya v. Union of India, a judgment of Bombay High Court was challenged before the SC. The present writ Petition was filed by former employees in the Overseas Communications Service, a Department of the Government of India. The High Court dismissed their plea holding that they were not eligible to avail pensionary benefits under the Government of India, since they had served for less than 10 years on the date of their

Orders and Judgments Duration March 08 – 22, 2019

The Supreme Court (SC) has referred to larger bench the correctness of its judgment in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, in which it was held that where the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied between landlord and tenant, disputes between the said parties would not be arbitrable. The bench was considering the appeal against Calcutta High Court (HC) order appointing an Arbitrator

Orders and Judgments Duration February 23- March 07, 2019

The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that the venue of Arbitration cannot change the intention of the parties to vest the courts in a specific region with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the Arbitration or its award. The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench while deciding a preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court

Orders and Judgments Duration January 8 – 22, 2019

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari against judicial orders passed by civil courts is not maintainable.
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be maintainable

Orders and Judgments Duration – December 23, 2018 – January 07, 2019

Two persons, filed their claim petitions before the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“the Act”) against the Appellant. In these claim petitions, the Respondents claimed that, they had worked with the Appellant on her land for the relevant period but she did not pay them their legitimate wages despite rendering their services for her. The two applicants (workers/employees), therefore, claimed that their legitimate wages for the period in question be determined in the light of the provisions of the Act and the claimants

1 5 6 7

Disclaimer

The Bar Council of India Rules do not permit law firms to solicit work or advertise. By clicking the ‘I Agree’ button the Reader accepts that it seeks information on its own accord. Alaya Legal shall in no way be responsible for any technical inaccuracies in the website, or for any actions taken or not taken for reasons attributable to the information contained in this website or accessed through this website. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a qualified professional while dealing with specific issues.By continuing to use this site you consent to use of cookies on your device as mentioned in this cookie policy.

Alaya Legal shall in no way be responsible for any technical inaccuracies in the website, or for any actions taken or not taken for reasons attributable to the information contained in this website or accessed through this website. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a qualified professional while dealing with specific issues.The views appearing under various heads, including ‘Trending’, are those of the author. The author may be reached at by writing to Alaya Legal at contact@alayalegal.com Nothing herein is or may be construed as legal advice.