Month: April 2017

Held according to the test laid down by a seven Judge Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Severage Board vs. A Rajappa and Others, (1978)2 SCC 213, the Telecom Department of Union of India is an ‘industry’ within that definition, because it is engaged in a commercial activity and the Department is not engaged in discharging any one of the sovereign functions of the State.

  AIR 1998 SC 656 : (1997) 9 JT 234 : (1997) 7 SCALE 99 : (1997) 8 SCC 767 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 6 : (1997) 5 SCR 212 Supp…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 – Murder – Incident of firing – Ocular as well as medical evidence – Oral evidence not found at variance with medical evidence – Prosecution evidence pertaining to assault by fire arms substantially tallied with medical evidence – Inconsistency relating to distance from which gunshots were fired held to be inconsequential

  (2008) 8 JT 411 : (2008) 10 SCALE 536 : (2009) AIRSCW 1752 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SURAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before…

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Section – 33, 27, 22, 54-It is not in dispute that no opportunity was granted to displaced person on 10.11.1982 and before passing of the order on 11.11.1982 – There was constructive res judicata, and there is no provision to move after 9 years for transfer of the kothi. It is significant that all previous orders which have relevance were suppressed – All previous orders which have relevance were suppressed – Appeal dismissed.

  (2008) 8 JT 295 : (2008) 10 SCALE 551 : (2008) 12 SCC 306 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BEHARI KUNJ SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P.…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section – 4(1), 23(1) – Acquisition – Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) was published on October 24, 1961 acquiring a large extent of 1669 bighas 18 biswas of land for the planned development of Delhi – It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value

  (1996) 7 AD 583 : (1996) 9 JT 307 : (1996) 7 SCALE 354 : (1996) 11 SCC 542 : (1996) 6 SCR 231 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA…

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.