Lapse of acquisition proceedings – In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. EMINENT MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. – the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. BEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
Default bail – In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime bail can be cancelled on merits
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GANGI REDDY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Seniority of the candidates should be determined treating the entry into the cadre of both sets of candidates (i.e. promotees and direct recruits)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL PANDEY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
As the possession was taken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary, any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUSHILA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…
Accused Relies On Income Tax Returns To Show Complainant Did Not Have Financial Capacity – Plea accepted
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2013 RAJARAM S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. …APPELLANT (S) VERSUS MARUTHACHALAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH…
Selection list for the posts of Assistant Radio Officers in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department. – held and direct that the seniority of the candidates including the appellants should be determined treating the entry into the cadre of both sets of candidates (i.e. promotees and direct recruits) on 30th January 1996 and the seniority position should be recast on that basis.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL PANDEY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972 – Section 3A(3) – Levy of Additional Special Road Tax – Constitutional Validity – Tax imposed under Section 3A(3) is regulatory in character and is not a penalty – Legislatures of the State have not only the power to make laws on the taxation to be imposed on motor vehicles as also the passengers and goods being transported by motor vehicles but also the power to lay down principles on which taxes on vehicles are to be levied –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul,…
Contract – Irrigation restoration charges – Respondent agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000 per hectare for irrigation restoration charges in an agreement with the Appellant, and therefore cannot challenge the above said amount..
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…