Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the same have lapsed as the award was not declared within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act – High Court has committed a grave error in not excluding the period of interim stay granted by it in writ petition – Even grant of interim stay of possession would also save lapsing of the acquisition – Appeal allowed.

Sep 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S MOTI RATAN ESTATE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah…

Land Acquisition

There was a steep increase in the price of land in the 1990s-The material on record suggests that the Secretariat and several other commercial complexes came up just opposite the land acquired during the period—Keeping in view locational advantage of land acquired, percentage of cumulative increase enhanced from 5% per annum to 12% per annum

Apr 21, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 934 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 730 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageshwara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal No.…

Land Acquisition

Land and Property Law–Acquisition of land–Lapsing of Reservation–Land reserved under development plan–Land not acquired within 10 years of final plan and no steps under Land Acquisition Act were commenced–After 10 years, land owner served notice under Section 127 of Act of 1966 to authorities to acquire land, within six months or take steps to acquire it–No action from authorities–Reservation lapsed and land has to be released in favour of the appellant

Dec 25, 2018 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No. 7801 of 2002…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 18—Development Charges—Deduction of 50%—Deduction held to be justified on following grounds—Held; (i) Land acquired in question is a large chunk of land (101 acres approx.); (ii) It is not fully developed; (iii) Landowners have not filed any exemplar sale deed relating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of the acquired land; (iv) Exemplar sale deed relied on by the landowners, pertains to very small pieces of land (19 guntas); (v) Three distinguishing features noticed in the land in exemplar sale deed are not present in the acquired land.  

Dec 19, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2902 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1757 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                                    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit    …

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 and S.3(c)–Issuance of Notification-­Delegation of authority—State is empowered to appoint any officer other than a Collector or Deputy Commissioner to act as Collector—Such officer is empowered to extent of purpose mentioned in notification designating him as Collector—But relying upon same notification the designated officer cannot act as Collector in respect of other acquisition proceedings-Impugned notification u/s 4 issued by designated officer without being empowered for that is set aside.

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2767 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1610 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11A & 6–Land Acquisition–Objections–Notification and the declaration of the acquisition proceedings challenged after the expiry of the period of 2 years–Interim order was passed for four weeks, the same interim order was made final until further orders–Cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to expiry of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act relating to the acquired lands–Two years from the date of declaration must be computed after excluding the period when parties had approached the court and obtained interim stay of such acquisition notices

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 137 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Civil Appeal No. 8235 of…

You missed

Consumer

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