Category: State Laws

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Section – 85(8) – Delay in filling the application under section 85(8) – Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala affirming the order of the Taluk Land Board dismissing the application of the appellants filed under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as barred by time

(1998) 9 JT 499 : (1997) 11 SCC 256 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ALIPARAMBA MOHAMMED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Whether an application under Section 416 of the Act could at all be maintained by a person in whose favour there was only an agreement for sale and who had not acquired the title – Writ petition filed in the High Court was not confined to raising dispute between private parties. There was essentially an element of public interest involved as serious questions alleging violations of building laws and the town planning were raised – Appeal allowed.

  (2005) 12 SCC 317 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DEBASHIS ROY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.C. Lahoti, C.J.; H.K.…

Once the land was allotted to the appellant and had become his property it loses the character of being ‘evacuee property’ thereafter; the Collector has, therefore, rightly taken note of the subsequent acquisition of land by the appellant under Section 14-B and recomputed the excess land – Appeal dismissed.

  (2001) 4 JT 419 : (2001) 9 SCC 734 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Examination of reports – The case arises of alleged ill-treatment of appellant by her husband and her father. The case is going on since 29th July, 1995. Appellant came up against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 29th July, 1995 ordering to be admitted to Delhi Psychiatry center, 35, Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, for observation and treatment

  (1997) 2 Crimes 62 : (1997) 5 JT 120 : (1997) 3 SCALE 761 : (1997) 5 SCC 346 : (1997) 1 UJ 736 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ANAMIKA…

House Tax— State Government has given exemption to the self occupied residential houses from the payment of house tax—But not to self occupied commercial premises—Whether proper ? YES. Jurisdiction of High Court— The court cannot usurp the functions assigned to the legislative bodies under the Constitution and even indirectly require the legislature to exercise its power of law making in particular manner.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 2429 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia The Hon’ble Mr. JusticeB. Sudershan Reddy Civil Appeal No. 684 of…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.