Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 03/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition

Twin conditions – For the purpose of lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 25 – Determination of compensation – the sale deed is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition – On the contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

Docid # IndLawLib/1602681   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SATPAL AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent…

Land Acquisition

HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.1983, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAKEEL AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 23.02.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. MANISH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. NARENDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Land Acquisition

HELD – nothing is on record to show that the writ petitioners were praying and/or a grievance was made by the original landowners with respect to nonpayment of compensation and that the possession of the land in question was stated to be taken in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama – High Court has error in declared that the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJESH DUA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Land Acquisition

When the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings and the same was handed over to the DDA and that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and therefore there was no question of tendering any compensation to him

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. SHYAMO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

Bail Declined Companies Act

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 185 — Loan to directors — Violation of Section 185 — Loan from company to director for securing bail without special resolution — Deposit of Rs. 50 Crores for bail sourced from company funds without proper approval — Held to be not sustainable in law.

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw
Contract Act Tenders & Contracts

Contract Law — Termination and Blacklisting — Principles of Judicial Review — Courts must apply distinct standards of legality, rationality, and proportionality when reviewing administrative actions related to contract termination and blacklisting, considering the differing gravity of these measures and their consequences.

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Disciplinary proceedings — Punishment — Judicial review — The court’s power to review punishment is limited and generally does not allow substitution of its own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority unless the punishment is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or shocks the conscience of the court

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw
Waqf

Waqf Act, 1995 — Section 3(i) and Section 32(2)(g) — Jurisdiction of Civil Court versus Waqf Board — Distinction between Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli — Sajjadanashin is a spiritual head with religious duties, while Mutawalli is a secular manager of Waqf property — Waqf Board has jurisdiction over appointment and removal of Mutawallis but not Sajjadanashins — Civil Court retains jurisdiction over disputes concerning the office of Sajjadanashin — High Court wrongly held Civil Court lacked jurisdiction.

Apr 3, 2026 sclaw