Month: April 2023

Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 – Section 10 – Overriding effect – Once consent is taken from the Pollution Control Board, the necessity for reading down Section 10 of the Kerala MSME Act, for the purpose of protecting the environment, does not arise.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOLLY GEORGE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Vedanta University case – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) and 6 – Acquisition of lands – it is required to be noted that the lands to be acquired are agricultural lands belonging to 6000 families and their only source of livelihood is on the agricultural lands, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, the proposal made now has to be rejected outright.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah And Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Appellants have been admitted to be owner of the property being Khasra No. 4833 the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court as well as the High Court are perverse if considered in the light of two material documents which are in the form of admission of respondents themselves regarding the identity of the property in their possession High court set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Accused-appellant doing the work of a tailoring – Weapon used is a scissors which is not a normal weapon of offence in case there is any intention to cause death – With the evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, the offence will not fall within Section 307 IPC – 326 IPC made out – Already undergone

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANCHRAM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

SARFESAI Act, 2002 – Section 13(2) – If someone has been called upon to participate in the bidding process, the facts must be made clear to the parties for the reason that there is always a high variance between market realizable value and the distress value of the mortgaged property when put to public auction under the provisions of the Act, 2002.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. SHARIQ — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil…

RSS Route Marches in the State of Tamil Nadu – Permission to RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) is granted – Special Leave Petition against the order of the Division Bench of Madras High Court directing the State Police to grant permission to RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) is dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. PHANINDRA REDDY, I.A.S. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. G. SUBRAMANIAN — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Special…

Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside – Matter remanded

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before…

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.