Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 25 – Determination of compensation – the sale deed is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition – On the contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor.
Docid # IndLawLib/1602681 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SATPAL AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent…
Fire Policy – Once that assessment has been made regarding the loss/damage which took place due to fire dated 20th October, 2006 and that was not disputed by the Company, repudiating the claim invoking clause 6(b) of the policy, was unfair and is not legally sustainable – Company is directed to make the payment of Rs, 21,76,524/ as assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Surveyor’s report.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARNAVATI VENEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar,…
HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.1983, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAKEEL AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…
HELD possession of the land in question was taken on 23.02.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. MANISH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…
HELD the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SH. NARENDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…
HELD once having obtained the stay of possession, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that as the possession (which is not taken due to stay) has not been taken therefore, there would be lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Contract – Loss of transportation charges – It would be extremely unfair and unjust, apart from being an arbitrary action in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that IPCL is charged for loss of transportation charges when it is mandated to lay down its own pipelines and not to transport the gas through the HBJ pipeline
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…
What may constitute an accident but it would not qualify as “accidental means”. (a) a fatal heart attack while dancing would be called “accidental” but would fail to attract insurance cover as not due to “accidental means”; (b) heart attack suffered as a result of over-exertion on being chased by a ferocious dog the death might attract the insurance cover as it was caused by “accidental means” – Insurance company is not liable – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S.…
Two pre-conditions must be fulfilled in order to claim regularization of employment – (1) initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and; (2) there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working – Conditions missing appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIBHUTI SHANKAR PANDEY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…
The definition of Sikkimese and the reference to Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 and Sikkim subject Rules, 1961 though repealed, are relevant for the purpose of the Explanation to Clause 26 (AAA) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY…






