Category: State Laws

Demand raised by the appellants against the respondent company, of excise duty on the liquor lost in fire, is authorised by law and has rightly been raised as per the applicable provisions of the Act of 1910, the Excise Manual and the Rules of 1969. – Fire incident in question cannot be said to be that of an event beyond human control and the High Court has been in error in holding that no negligence could be imputed on the respondent company.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF UP THROUGH SECRETARY (EXCISE) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S MCDOWELL AND COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh…

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – Section 42 – Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – Sections 13 and 13(A)(2) – Possession – Transfer of rights -Land allotted to Scheduled Caste – Declaration – Appellant-original defendant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS — Appellant Vs. JASSA RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – Section 38E – Grant of ownership certificate -the protected tenants are deemed to be owners – Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers – Therefore, title of the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) SLP (Civil) No.…

Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act of 1966 – Sections 65 and Section 65(2-A) – Market fee – Liability – Merely imports notified agricultural produce from outside the State for the purpose of cleaning and processing without selling the processed produce within the market area is not liable to pay market fee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APMC YASHWANTHAPURA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. M/S. SELVA FOODS THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 14A and 25 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Expression “validity of the decision or the Order” in Section 25 of the Act, would not include a case where, despite a dispute projected, that there was no landlord-tenant relationship, the Authority decides the said issue in the course of the Order of Eviction, under Section 14A, after brushing aside the tenant’s objection relating to his position, viz., that he is not a tenant. In such a situation, the validity is tied-up with the fundamental aspect of absence of power of the Authority to decide on the question of landlord-tenant relationship.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHANTI PARSHAD(D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…

Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – Sections 3 and 8 – Forest lands – Settlement of disputes – Respondent successfully urged before the High Court that what was demarcated was only 100 hectares and the others were not demarcated since they were cultivated – This was borne out by the final report – Possession with respect to 100 hectares of uncultivated forest lands was also covered by draft statement of land furnished to the Board in proceedings under the KLR Act – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and S.…

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 – Sections 14, 15 and 16(1) – Cultivating tenants, right to first purchase the land leased to him – Surrender of tenancy – Notice – Requirement of notice for the prescribed period of three months, to the landlord, and the concerned revenue official is mandatory – This provision, in the form of a procedure enacted for the welfare and protection of a tenant (like the appellant) has to be construed in its literal and plain terms

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Rejected the constitutional challenge to the validity of Sections 52 (1)(a), Section 55(b)(1) and Section 56 of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Appeals allowed HC judgement set aside. Writ petition dismissed. The appellants entitled to recover balance of dues to be recovered per notice of demand, interest at 9 per cent p a.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  JALKAL VIBHAG NAGAR NIGAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Inams Act is to the effect that nothing in the Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of the provisions of the Tenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights and obligations of Inamdar and his tenants, save insofar as the said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act. – Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act was inserted initially in the year 1954 and subsequently substituted in 1971 giving overriding effect to such provision. Therefore, an Inamdar under the Inams Act would not have any right of allotment of occupancy rights in view of overriding effect given to Section 38-E.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANDALA RAMULAMMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 3(2) – Possession – HELD land was lying vacant with a compound wall and that therefore, the claim of the land owner to be in possession must be correct. There can hardly be any such presumption – Existence of the compound wall enclosing even the land that had already been sold by the land owner to the Trust, is admitted by the land owner herself in her letter – High Court committed a grave error in granting the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act to the respondents. Cases Referred

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M.S. VISWANATHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

You missed