
2020 SCC Vol. 8 Part 2
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 43 — Preferential nature of transactions — Determination/Identification of: Satisfaction of three fold requirements i.e.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 43 — Preferential nature of transactions — Determination/Identification of: Satisfaction of three fold requirements i.e.
Procedural and Evidentiary liberties under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act: An application under Section 34 is meant only for examining the
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of H.C. Mishra and Deepak Roshan, JJ., allowed the present petition against the respondent authorities charging
Delhi High Court: Rajiv Shakdher, J., issued the summons in the suit filed by Elsevier Ltd. against Alexandra Elbakyan and others alleging infringement
by Rajnish Kumar Jha*
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., asked the State Government to file a report in the
by Anurag Tripathi* & Naman Singh Bagga**
by Saransh Chaturvedi*
Central Information Commission (CIC): Suresh Chandra (Information Commissioner) observed that disclosure of the names of the donors and donees of electoral bonds
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J., while setting aside the detention order, reiterated that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and H. T. Narendra Prasad JJ., allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned
Since 2020 is now winding down, we switch on our flashback mode and note that a lot of changes in the name
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and P. Krishna Bhat, JJ., emphasized on the importance of jurisdictional
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member)
Suchita Shukla†
Madras High Court: R. Pongiappan, J., observed that: “…saptpadi for Hindus is the necessary requirement, which if completed make a marriage valid in
Patna High Court: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J., allowed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the entire proceeding of land acquisition and
Madras High Court: R. Pongiappan, J., addressed the Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the First Information Report of first respondent police as
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sandeep Sharma, JJ., while dismissing the present petition said, “The
Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ. and S. Kumar, J., while allowing the present petition, discussed the issue