Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 – There shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. B.S. DHILLON AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
HELD not shown what transpired that made the respondents resort to Fundamental Rules 56(j) and invoke the public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire appellant with just three months of service left for retirement, in routine. Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, it is firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…
Long-term Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs” for short) with Adani Power Maharashtra Limited HELD The CERC as well as the learned APTEL, on the interpretation of Articles 8.3.5 and 8.8.3 of the PPA, have concurrently found that the procurer had delayed the payment by not making the payment within the due date and, as such, GMR was entitled to late payment surcharge – Supreme court find no reason to interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram…
HELD allow the Resolution Plan (RP) preferred by Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited (AIIL) qua the debenture holders, except the dissenting debenture holders – Direction that the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the RP. Alternatively, the dissenting debenture holders will have a right to stand outside the proposed RP framed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AUTHUM INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. R.K. MOHATTA FAMILY TRUST AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar,…
Murder – Acquittal – If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court -H C conviction set aside trial court acquittal affirmed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…
Transfer of elephants from one state to another state – HELD Chief Wild Life Warden(s) of the State(s) to which the issue relates will be the co-opted as Members of the said Committee in place of the Chief Wild Life Wardens of Tripura and Gujarat, throughout the territory of India,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURULY M. S. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…
Auction platform – Right of – Merely because a person is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Lapse of land acquisition – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, – When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. BURHANI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT SNEH NAGAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Unauthorized occupation and possession of the land, which is reserved for the school and the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized – There cannot be any school without playground – Even the students, who study in such a school are entitled to a good environment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SATPAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
(IPC) – Sections 300 Exception 4 – Culpable homicide is not murder – Four requirements must be satisfied to invoke this exception, viz. (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300, IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREMCHAND — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…









