Insights
On February 18, 2025, a landmark hearing began in the Supreme Court of India regarding the scope of judicial intervention in arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case, titled Union of India v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.", will address a crucial question: Can the courts modify arbitral awards, or are their powers confined only to setting them aside or upholding them?
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Shanti vs. National Insurance Company, addressing pivotal issues related to the rejection of insurance claims. The judgment was authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and it is of considerable importance in the context of insurance law in India.
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas, which addressed the application of the legal principle functus officio in the context of executive rule-making authorities. This judgment provides clarity on the scope of the principle and its relevance to different bodies within the government, particularly the distinction between judicial, quasi-judicial, and executive authorities.
On February 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of P. Rammoan Rao vs. K. Srinivas (SLP(C) No. 4036-4038/2024), addressing critical issues related to the execution of decrees granting perpetual injunctions. This ruling has significant implications for the legal community, as it clarifies important aspects of limitation laws and the enforcement of civil court judgments.
On February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important ruling in a case involving Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil, wherein the court quashed criminal proceedings after the parties involved reached a settlement. This decision marks a significant development in Indian criminal law, reinforcing the principle that criminal trials may be dismissed when there is an amicable resolution between the parties.
The case of Amrit Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand, captured the attention of legal experts and the public alike. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Vikram Nath, carefully examined the appeal filed by Amrit Yadav against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court. This case offers valuable insights into the legal principles applied in criminal appeals and the broader judicial process.
On February 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., which clarified the legal stance regarding child custody in cases where a father has remarried. This decision emphasized that a father's remarriage, in itself, does not disqualify him from obtaining custody of his minor child. The ruling brought attention to the fact that the child's welfare is the overriding factor in custody disputes and not the marital status of the parent.
Vihaan Kumar was arrested by the Haryana police on June 10, 2024, in connection with allegations of cheating and forgery. He contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, thereby violating his rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the reasons for their arrest and be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.
