September 10, 2024 12:32 pm

Jurisdiction of Lokayukta – Correction of Revenue Records – Lokayukta cannot direct the correction of revenue records

Bysclaw

Dec 6, 2023

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 — Section 23 — Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987 — Section 5 — Exemption from Market fees — Market fees and Rural Development fees are distinct fees levied under two different statutes with different objects and purposes — The court further clarified that the exemption from Market fees under the 2003 Industrial Policy does not automatically extend to Rural Development fees — The court set aside the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and dismissed the writ petition exemption from payment of Rural Development fees.

Jul 16, 2024 sclaw

“Jalkar vs. Private Ownership: Supreme Court Settles Dispute Over Pond Land in Bihar” Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Section 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The dispute involves 0.32 decimal of land in Bihar, originally settled by ex-landlord ‘R’ to ‘M’, and then allegedly inherited by the plaintiff-appellant through adoption – The main issue is the possession and confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over the land, which was challenged by the State authorities claiming the land as state-owned pond land (jalkar) – The plaintiff-appellant claims continuous possession since the land was settled to ‘M’ and asserts that the Consolidation Officer’s order confirming his title should be respected – The State of Bihar contends that the land is pond land and cannot be settled to the plaintiff-appellant, and that the civil suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act – The Supreme Court set aside the appellate courts’ judgments, restored the trial court’s decree, and confirmed the plaintiff-appellant’s title and possession of the land – The Court found that the appellate courts erred in ignoring the final and conclusive order of the Consolidation Officer, which recognized the plaintiff-appellant’s rights – The Court reasoned that the Consolidation Officer’s order, which became final, should have been given effect to, and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is impliedly excluded in such matters – The Supreme Court concluded that the civil suit for declaration of rights over the land is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, and the plaintiff-appellant’s rights stand recognized by the consolidation authorities.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw