Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 04/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

While maintaining the acquisition proceedings, the High Court granted a substantial relief to the land owners by directing payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is higher than the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – This approach cannot be faulted.

May 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Additional amount of penal interest must be paid in place of shifting the date for determination of the amount of compensation or to determine the compensation as per 2013 Act.

May 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH REDDY VEERANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

HELD the ground on which the High Court had allowed the review applications was thereafter not available. Under the circumstances, and in view of the subsequent development, which was even pointed out to the High Court while filing the recall application being CMA No. 23091/2017, the order(s) passed by the High Court in Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to be quashed and set aside. All appeals allowed.

Apr 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 – Sections 32(2) and 34 – Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Future use of the acquired land cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation for the lands acquired

Apr 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of Acquisition proceedings – In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment – The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

Apr 9, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJ AN SOOD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 31(6) and 126 -The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period – Appeal allowed.

Mar 30, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMIKANT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land owners having had the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners.

Mar 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, BANGALORE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

You missed

Service

Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 29A — Mandate of Arbitrator — Extension of mandate — In the absence of specific statutory provisions, party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention are guiding principles — If a party participates in proceedings and does not object to the extension of mandate, they may be estopped from challenging the award on that ground after it is passed.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) — Section 33 and Section 34(3) — Limitation for filing application to set aside arbitral award — Exclusion of time spent in disposal of applications under Section 33 — Court held that period spent in disposal of Section 33 applications by Arbitral Tribunal must be excluded for computing limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, regardless of whether the Section 33 applications were ultimately allowed or dismissed.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 15(1), 16, 39(a) & 39(c) — Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (2016 Order) — Clause 2(p) — Government Order (G.O.) No — 6 of 2019 — Paragraph IV(10) — Exclusion of married daughter from definition of ‘family’ for compassionate appointment as fair price shop dealer — Held, exclusion is based on gender stereotypes and lacks rational nexus with the object of the scheme, violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution — Marital status cannot be the sole criterion for dependency — Dependency is a question of fact.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw