Month: April 2017

General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 5 – Central Act – Date of enforcement – No specified date mentioned from which Act comes into force – In such case, Act comes into operation on the day on which it receives President’s assent. Section 5 is applicable only when the Act does not express any date with effect from which the Act would come into force. It will apply to such cases where there is no provision like Section 1(3) of the Act or Section 1(2) of the 44th Constitutional Amendment.

  AIR 2003 SC 4493 : (2003) 2 JT 270 Supp : (2003) 8 SCALE 463 : (2003) 8 SCC 250 : (2003) 4 SCR 471 Supp SUPREME COURT OF…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 -Court has examined the issue at some length and held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount are not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts where such cheque was presented or notice issued

  (2014) 10 SCALE 299 : AIR 2015 SC 1006 : (2014) 4 BC 209 : (2014) 4 CCR 190 : (2014) 123 CLA 15 : (2015) 1 JCC 22…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 3(f)(vi) – Acquisition of Land – For benefit of registered society – Tentative conclusion must be coupled with specific approval to acquire land for public purpose – State Government not prohibited from acting on basis of relevant material on record.

  (2000) 3 JT 468 Supp : (2000) 8 SCALE 281 : (2000) 5 SCR 483 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE GOVT. HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs.…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.