Category: State Laws

Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Sections 2(4) and 31(2) – Eviction – having purchased the land in the year 2007 after parting with valuable consideration, the appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence – Accordingly, This Court allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Gujarat High Court as well as the orders passed by the authorities and remand the matter for consideration afresh on facts and law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANAIYALAL MAFATLAL PATEL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

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 —…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.