Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Housing

Constitution Corporate Housing

IMPORTANT – Allotment of Plot – Demand of additional price – Non-construction of plot within a period – Additional amount sought not be recovered at the stage of issuance of notice. HELD Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from the guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealing with the same issue opined the case to be fit for filing appeals. burden the Appellants with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

May 9, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,JJ. ) Civil…

Housing Property Matters

Enhancement clause clause does not talk about demand of additional price on account of any other factor specially the one raised in the present appeals, namely, on account of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land for carving of the plots Held the price as negotiated between the parties is clearly mentioned in the letter of allotment and the same has to be read as part of the lease-cum-sale agreement – Appeal dismissed

May 3, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. DHRUVA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Housing State Laws

HELD allotment of an identified plot in favour of Shashi Bala did not crystallize by the date of the Full Bench judgment and was at the stage of the Governments approval- FB judgement held invalidating the actual allotments made under the discretionary quota and directing the Government to draw up a policy in relation to reservation for various categories – Appeal dismissed

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IMPROVEMENT TRUST, ROPAR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ROPAR, PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. SHASHI BALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay…

Housing State Laws

Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 – Rule 36(2) – Expulsion of membership on account of non-payment of dues for construction of flats – There is violation of Rule 36(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 and the prescribed procedure for expulsion of a society member has not been followed – Expulsion of membership order is upheld.

Apr 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GEETA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Aravind Kumar,…

Constitution Housing Property Matters

Chandigarh Administration shall not sanction any plan of a building which ex facie appears to be a modus operandi to convert a single dwelling unit into three different apartments occupied by three strangers; and no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or agreement or settlement amongst co­owners of a residential unit shall be registered nor shall it be enforceable in law for the purpose of bifurcation or division of a single residential unit into floor­ wise apartments –

Jan 12, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V.…

Housing

HELD flat owners subsequently forming a cooperative society land allotted to builder who made construction HELD since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Cooperative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.

Oct 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MR. ASPI CHINOY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Housing

Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026 – Regulation 36 – Premium FSI Charges – Division Bench did not keep in view the well settled principle that no right accrued to the applicant-builder by mere filing of application for approval and the right accrues only after approval is granted by the Government/concerned authorities

Dec 11, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THREE JUDGES BENCH CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.…

Housing

This Court hold that such projects cannot be permitted to come up within such a short distance from the wildlife sanctuary. Moreso, in view of the Notification issued with respect to the Sukhna wildlife sanctuary towards the side of Chandigarh Union Territory and also considering the fact that proposal made by the Punjab Government, confining the Buffer Zone to 100 meters, has rightly not been accepted by MoEF

Nov 5, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AALOK JAGGA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai,…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw