Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.18—Development Charges—Exemplar sale deed was only for 99 sq. yds., whereas the total acquired land is 05 acres- -Acquired land is abutting residential area, which is a Mandal Headquarter where bank, high school, bus stand, telephone exchange, police station, primary health centre, cinema hall, petrol pumps are located—Deduction of 30% towards development charges held to be justified.

Oct 30, 2018 sclaw

2O18(3) Law Herald (SC) 2307 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1493 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon~ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Haul Kalluri Veakata Narasimha…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S.15(2)–Objection–It is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings lega

Oct 14, 2018 sclaw

2018 (3) Law Herald (SC) 2063 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1431 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIV SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre,…

Land Acquisition

Practice & Procedure—Noting in official Government file—It does not create any legal right. Land Acquisition—Release of Land—Once the possession of the acquired land was with the State, the land stood vested in the State disentitling the State to release the land—Thereafter, Revenue Minister had no power to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act for release of the land

Oct 7, 2018 sclaw

2018(3} Law Herald (SC) 1987 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1416 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                      Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Civil…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.I8—Market Value—Fruit bearing trees–Appellants submitted that since the holding is very small and since the people have been dependent and the income from the fruit bearing trees they would go by the calculation on the basis of income from fruit bearing trees only and not on basis of land value–Ordered accordingly

Jul 8, 2018 sclaw

(2017) 4 LawHerald(SC) 2880 : (2018) 2 Scale 338 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISMAIL HUSHEN GHANCHI — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Kurian Joseph and…

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