Month: August 2023

HELD the consent terms and the directions of High Court were silent as to within what period the appellant had to make such an application, it was required to be construed that appellant had to make application after it received the compensation awarded under Section 11 and after it handed over possession of the lands, which it did. Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI NASHIK PANCHAVATI PANJARPOL TRUST AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar…

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 73 – Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract – It is undeniable that the measure of damages, per Section 73 of the Contract Act, is the difference between the price at which goods sell at the marketplace on the date of breach, and the contract price

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. J. BAKER AND BROS. INC. — Appellant Vs. THE MINERALS AND METALS TRADE CORPORATION LTD. (MMTC) — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

HELD the enactment of section 142A of the Customs Act does confer or create a first charge on the dues ‘payable’ under the Customs Act, notwithstanding provisions under any Central Act, but not in cases covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and the Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and the Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 201

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) — Appellant Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND…

HELD the construction of the disputed building on the land earmarked/reserved as a playground is illegal and contrary to the Panchayats proposal, technical sanction and the financial sanction, as well as the work order and hence, the same, has to be demolished at the cost and responsibility of the respondent No.2 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Longewala and respondent No.4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Longewala

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT, LONGWALA PANCHAYAT SAMITI, PILIBANGA, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. MANVEER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 – Law of Precedents – Doctrine of Merger and Res judicata – Dismissal of appeal without any reasons being recorded would not attract Article 141 of the Constitution of India as no law was declared by the Supreme Court, which will have a binding effect on all courts and tribunals in India – The logic behind the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi…

Service Matters

A presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of the validity of the marriage between the deceased and the appellant-wife, more so, when during his life time, the deceased had approached the respondent authorities for seeking deletion of the name of his previous wife from his service record and for endorsement of the name of the appellant- wife, which was duly acted upon by the respondents – Pensionary benefits granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND…

Murder – Acquittal – Case of prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession – for the reasons recorded, it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant – Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOORTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.975…

You missed