Category: State Laws

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. )…

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Section 4 – the factum of delay and laches is clear and patent on the face of the record, requiring no further enquiry or evidence – present case is involving inordinate delay – HELD No evidence is brought on record of appellant being aware of the proscription in law as regards land – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAKUNTALA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Sections 118 and 121 – Partition – When a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed – At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AN OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

HELD allotment of an identified plot in favour of Shashi Bala did not crystallize by the date of the Full Bench judgment and was at the stage of the Governments approval- FB judgement held invalidating the actual allotments made under the discretionary quota and directing the Government to draw up a policy in relation to reservation for various categories – Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IMPROVEMENT TRUST, ROPAR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ROPAR, PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. SHASHI BALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay…

Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 – Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) – Disqualification – There cannot be a birthright to seek adjournments, especially when the Divisional Commissioner was mandated to decide the issue of disqualification within a period of ninety days from application, as per Section 40(2) of the Act – Divisional Commissioner thus rightly treated the written submissions as his defence – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIRENDRASING — Appellant Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

You missed