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.…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 – Arbitration Proceedings – Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine – Group of Companies doctrine is applicable to arbitration proceedings – Definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH COX AND KINGS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 32(1) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 5(1A) – There is no requirement under the second proviso to sub-rule (1A) of Rule 5 of the Rules that any particular mode of computing the claim of depreciation has to be opted for before the due date of filing of the return
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Appellant Vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Respondent ( Before : B. V.…
Suit for specific performance – Refund of earnest money – Merely refunding the earnest money paid, after sixty years will be unreasonable as the respondent, after booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the litigation since 1986 – Price of the land in the area has increased manifold for the last sixty years – Appellant pays a total amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of claim in the suit – Appeals disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY @ APPELLANT Vs. KANTI PRASAD JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…
Custody of child – For the proper growth of a child, the love and affection of both parents are deemed necessary – In any custody matter, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SELVARAJ — Appellant Vs. REVATHI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(S). …of 2023 (Arising out…
S.138 NI Act | Availability Of Funds In Other Bank Accounts Not A Defence; Cheque Dishonour Relates To Specific Account
“In a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot rely upon other bank accounts for the dishonoured cheque which relates to specific bank account of…
Service Law – Disciplinary Proceeding – Judicial Review – If the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM LAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Calculation of the Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Direction issued to Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to examine effect of ‘new evidence’ produced by Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. — Appellant Vs. AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M. M.…
Kannur University Act, 1996 – Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) – Re-appointment of Vice-Chancellor – It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.,…
Rejection of plaint – Suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action – There being different consideration for adjudication second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal,…