Category: Constitution

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 7 read with 19(1) – Forfeiture of Property – The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 has been enacted by the Parliament with an object to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto – Order of forfeiture is upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 – Section 9 – – It is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose – It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Proposal to convert the subject land from leasehold to freehold as per the policy- policy in question cannot be applied in relation to the subject land. Therefore, we find no necessity to delve further into the other issues raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that it has no policy to grant freehold rights in its allotments. Suffice it would be to say for the present purpose that the claim of the petitioner for freehold rights in relation to the subject land cannot be accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K.…

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Section 40 – Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003. – High Court has rightly observed that the application submitted by the appellant herein which was made beyond the period prescribed under Rule 4(2) was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected by the appropriate authority/Chief Wild Life Warden.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHALAKSHI AMMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Constitution of India – Article 226(2) – Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the impugned notification, on merit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF GOA — Appellant Vs. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…