Category: State Laws

“Jalkar vs. Private Ownership: Supreme Court Settles Dispute Over Pond Land in Bihar” Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – Section 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The dispute involves 0.32 decimal of land in Bihar, originally settled by ex-landlord ‘R’ to ‘M’, and then allegedly inherited by the plaintiff-appellant through adoption – The main issue is the possession and confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over the land, which was challenged by the State authorities claiming the land as state-owned pond land (jalkar) – The plaintiff-appellant claims continuous possession since the land was settled to ‘M’ and asserts that the Consolidation Officer’s order confirming his title should be respected – The State of Bihar contends that the land is pond land and cannot be settled to the plaintiff-appellant, and that the civil suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act – The Supreme Court set aside the appellate courts’ judgments, restored the trial court’s decree, and confirmed the plaintiff-appellant’s title and possession of the land – The Court found that the appellate courts erred in ignoring the final and conclusive order of the Consolidation Officer, which recognized the plaintiff-appellant’s rights – The Court reasoned that the Consolidation Officer’s order, which became final, should have been given effect to, and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is impliedly excluded in such matters – The Supreme Court concluded that the civil suit for declaration of rights over the land is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, and the plaintiff-appellant’s rights stand recognized by the consolidation authorities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM BALAK SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. )…

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

2024 INSC 358 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

2024 INSC 339 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGI — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay…

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

2024 INSC 327 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 Sections 65(a)(e),81,98(2) and 116(2) and Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 – Court reasoned that the appellant should have approached the criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C instead of directly filing a Special Criminal Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to interpret Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act in conjunction with the Cr.P.C – The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stating that the appellant is free to approach the concerned court regarding the custody of the vehicle.

2024 INSC 285 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal,…

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9 – Refund of stamp duty paid for an increase in share capital – The Supreme Court examined whether Form No. 5 is an “instrument” under the Stamp Act and if the notice of increased share capital materially alters the Articles of Association, requiring fresh stamp duty – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Articles of Association are the only instruments liable for stamp duty and that the maximum cap applies as a one-time measure – The appellants were directed to refund the stamp duty with interest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,…

Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 Sections 5, 11, 11A and 77- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32 – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 – The Tenancy Act’s provisions were still applicable to the subject lands, and the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of the lands – The revisionary order dated 03.05.1982 was invalid, and the Bombay High Court justified it – The tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, and tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act – This right became operational on 27.11.1964, when the Watan lands were regranted to the original Watandar’s heirs.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – Section 2(v), 3 and 4 – Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the Act and if the government notification regarding “ghee” followed proper procedure – The court upheld that “ghee” is indeed a “product of livestock” and the 1994 government notification was valid – The court ruled that market fees must be paid for “ghee” from 1994 to 2009, with provisions for installment payments.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

You missed