Land Acquisition – Determination of compensation – Land respect to the very village, the acquisition proceedings came to be initiated in the month of January, 2008, it will not be safe and/or prudent to grant the cumulative increase of 12%.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
HELD whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of ex-communication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. This is an important and emergent issue. These are the two main grounds on which the said decision may need reconsideration by a larger Bench. Writ petition tagged to 9 judge bench.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…
While exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision – To do so would violate the law as declared, as it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Twin conditions – For the purpose of lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
HELD the provisions of Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are mandatory and non-compliance with these provisions renders the sale proceedings null and void – the property shall forthwith be re-sold.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA MAROTHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
AIBEA examination HELD the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay…
Medical College Admissions in breach of court order . Disastrous consequences which will be faced by the students if their admissions are disturbed, the sanctity of the judicial process has to be observed also. HELD that the admissions which were granted to 100 students should not be disturbed conditional on the Medical College depositing an amount of Rs 2.5 crores AIIMS.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANNASAHEB CHUDAMAN PATIL MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
The attempt by the appellants to have these appeals argued of only academic interest and would not serve any practical purpose because there is no current lis where the principles and circumstances prior may be applied. – Impose costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings before SCOI. This sum is to be donated to any benevolent organisation that helps children with cancer.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD (NOW KNOWN AS GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED) THR. MANAGER LEGAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS —…
Employee had died on 11.08.2009 whereas the Government order is dated 16.9.2009 – Therefore, there was no chance for him to exercise any option at all – HELD the LRs would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and would be entitled to the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity being the heirs of the deceased employee.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. PRIYANKA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Claim amenities and registration of sale deeds – By taking possession of apartments, flat owners do not lose the right to claim amenities promised by the builder – Matter remitted to NCDRC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBASHIS SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S R.N.R. ENTERPRISE REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR/CHAIRMAN, KOLKATA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…







