West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Section 9 – Application for pre-emption – Pre-emptors have to deposit the entire sale consideration with additional 10% and only thereafter the further enquiry can be conducted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ABDUL MATIN MALLICK — Appellant Vs. SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…
HELD we record our approval with the reasoning and conclusions in the impugned judgment in favour of the +2 lecturers to the effect that they are indeed the members of the Subordinate Educational Service
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHYAMA NANDAN MISHRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…
Determination of market value – Held, Though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BHAG SINGH ETC. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
Rape – Cancellation of bail – Brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in the mind of the complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses – Bail order deserves to be set aside
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MS. P. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima…
HELD once the legality of closure of the old scheme was undisputed, there was no manner of right inhering with the club, to insist that its claim for any plot had to be considered. If at all, it ought to have applied under subsequent schemes, and waited like other applicants (of that scheme),
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RITU MAHESHWARI — Appellant Vs. M/S. PROMOTIONAL CLUB — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011 – Rule 9(4) – There cannot be any manner of doubt that a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee not to recommend the extension of tenure of the respondent – Order of extension of term of appointment is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NAVNEET KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B. R. Gavai, JJ. )…
HELD The Arbitral Tribunal, therefore, has rightly given effect to the specific agreement between the parties with regard to the rate of interest. We find that the arbitral award has been passed in consonance with the provisions as contained in clause (a) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act and specifically, in consonance with the phrase “unless otherwise agreed by the parties”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32 to 35 – Registration of document – A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. S.P. VELAYUTHAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…
When the statute provides a further remedy by way of appeal against the award and even against the order passed by the learned trial Court making the award a decree of the court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S. KELKAR AND KELKAR — Appellant Vs. M/S. HOTEL PRIDE EXECUTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory, the arrest of the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence and do not establish the fact accused committed the murder of the children –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Criminal…