Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Appeal against – possession of the land in question was taken over on 14.07.1987, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

Apr 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) — Appellant Vs. HARI CHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Appeal against – – the possession of the land in question was taken over on 21.04.2006, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

Apr 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. SHIV RAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah And Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

Vedanta University case – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) and 6 – Acquisition of lands – it is required to be noted that the lands to be acquired are agricultural lands belonging to 6000 families and their only source of livelihood is on the agricultural lands, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, the proposal made now has to be rejected outright.

Apr 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah And Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside – Matter remanded

Apr 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before…

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 possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

Apr 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND AND BUIILDING DEPARTMENT THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ATTRO DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…

Land Acquisition

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Once there shall be no deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the original writ petitioner shall not be entitled to the compensation as per the Act, 2013.

Apr 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…

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 possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

Mar 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. BATTI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw