Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land acquisition – Compensation – Determination of market value – High Court has erred in law in holding that since the land of the sale exemplars is of irrigated agricultural land whereas the land acquired is unirrigated, is not the reasonable yardstick to determine market value of the land as the land in question is close to already developed area – Appeal allowed.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHUKAR S/O GOVINDRAO KAMBLE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…

Land Acquisition

Whether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held, An application under Section 28A of the Act cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of 1987 Act

Feb 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Appellant Vs. YUNUS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been incorporated into the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -HELD High Court erred in holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48(1) – Acquisition – Housing and development – Release of land – A notification under Section 48(1) does not warrant any notice or opportunity of hearing, to the original land owners – If at all any person will be aggrieved by the Notification under Section 48(1), it will be the beneficiary of the acquisition, which in this case is the Parishad, and not the land owners – Therefore, This Court can understand if the Parishad makes out a grievance that their rights were taken away by the notification under Section 48(1)

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18(1) – Fixation of market value – Reference to Court – Fixation of market value in a Reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 necessarily involves some guesswork – Guesswork is required to be made by adopting one of the well-recognized methods, such as the comparison method or capitalization method.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMAN — Appellant Vs. INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of Land – Compensation – Suppression of material facts -appellants have not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts – They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law – Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI K. JAYARAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value/Compensation – HELD The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in that case determining the market value/compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has accepted the same by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award – Therefore, in the present circumstances, the appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre – Appeal allowed.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR SOTI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (U.P.) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 5A and 17(4) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Special powers in cases of urgency – HELD On an appreciation of the evidence made available by all the parties it is open to the court to conclude that no occasion arose for resorting to the power under Section 17 (4) which indeed must be read as an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acquisition was unjustified.

Nov 28, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and…

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw