Category: State Laws

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.…

Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 2007 – Sections 57, 158 and 159 – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Sections 108, 114 and 258 – Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity – Circulars issued by Madhya Pradesh Government to delete the names of Pujari from revenue record so as to protect the temple properties from unauthorized sale by the Pujaris upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 1972 – Rule 13 – New rule or amendment – Retrospectivity cannot be presumed – No indication that Rule 13 applied retrospectively – There is profusion of judicial authority on the proposition that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention, to the contrary.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ESTHAPPAN CHERIAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra…

Contract load/sanctioned load – Reduction of – Fresh agreements may have been executed at the stage of enhancement of load of the same electricity connection, the same cannot be treated as anything but an extension/amendment or modification of the initial agreement granting the electricity connection

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGING LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran,…

H P G S T Rules, 2017 – Rule 159(5) – Provisional attachment – Under the provisions of Rule 159(5), the person whose property is attached is entitled to dual procedural safeguards: (a) An entitlement to submit objections on the ground that the property was or is not liable to attachment; and (b) An opportunity of being heard;

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS RESPONDENT ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah,…

Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple Case – Court direct that the ‘Overseeing Committee’ shall function under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N. Srikrishna, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and manage the affairs of the temple in all respects – Ramchandrapura Math shall hand over charge of the affairs of the temple to the Assistant Commissioner who shall also act as Secretary to the ‘Overseeing Committee’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMACHNADRAPURA MATH — Appellant Vs. SRI SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA DEVARU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V.…

Reservation of seats in respect of OBCs – Reservation for OBCs must be proportionate in the context of nature and implications of backwardness and in any case, is permissible only to the extent it does not exceed the aggregate of 50 per cent of the total seats in the local bodies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIKAS KISHANRAO GAWALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.…

You missed