Category: State Laws

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 31A and 31D – Termination of tenancy – Landlord sought to recover possession for the purpose of personal cultivation – It was unnecessary for the revisional authority to remand the case for framing an issue on the applicability of Section 31A-31D – Applicability of those provisions was dependent on the question of whether the landlord’s holding exceeded one unit of economic holding – That question was merely one of law, the fact of the landlord’s holding having already come on record before the original authority – Revisional authority could have taken upon itself the task of deciding the question and disposing off the dispute before itself

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. MURALIDHAR (D) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar,…

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Section 4-C – Raiyat land is not for mining – The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’. The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining – Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory – Government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Section 28-A – Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of Commercial taxes – clarification provided by the Commissioner does is to clear the meaning of the two entries which was already implicit but had given rise to a confusion. A clarification of this nature, therefore, is bound to be retrospective – Circular dated 8th October, 1998 does not run counter to the provisions of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANTHOSH MAIZE & INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – Sections 3 and 4 – – eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord is circumscribed, by the Act – Hence, the court is required to ensure that even the limited ground(s) for eviction by the landlord of the cultivating tenant, are not frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. L.R. EKNATH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 – Regulation 34 – Claim for Additional TDR – Waiting to receive clearance of right over additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) in a pending acquisition proceeding does not amount to abandonment of the claim

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS —…

In the present case, the clear legislative intent, of inserting a carefully worded entry, which was a “hybrid” one, i.e. describing an article that contained medicinal ingredients, as well as those used for cosmetics, and yet placing such a creature (“neither beast nor fowl” so to say) in the category of cosmetics, ruled out altogether any interpretive scope of classifying it as a medicinal preparation, or drug or medicine

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEINZ INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERELA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil…

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – Sections 15(2-A) and 41 – Completion Certificate – the intention of the Act is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, otherwise the other charges also would have been defined under the Act, 1973. Levy of such other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

You missed