Enhancement clause clause does not talk about demand of additional price on account of any other factor specially the one raised in the present appeals, namely, on account of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land for carving of the plots Held the price as negotiated between the parties is clearly mentioned in the letter of allotment and the same has to be read as part of the lease-cum-sale agreement – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. DHRUVA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
HELD a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge – Acquittal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANTOSH @ BHURE — Appellant Vs. STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…
HELD considering that the place of occurrence was an open place and the other circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial confession) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased, would not be justified – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. PHOOLCHAND RATHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…
SCOI to constitute a three-judge bench to hear Central government’s application seeking the recall of a top court verdict wherein it had ruled in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India that an accused will be entitled to default bail if an incomplete charge sheet is filed by the investigating agency .
SCOI to constitute a three-judge bench to hear Central government’s application seeking the recall of a top court verdict wherein it had ruled that an accused will be entitled to…
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Section 4 – the factum of delay and laches is clear and patent on the face of the record, requiring no further enquiry or evidence – present case is involving inordinate delay – HELD No evidence is brought on record of appellant being aware of the proscription in law as regards land – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAKUNTALA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…
Auction – Bank guarantee – procedure and guidelines laid down by the ASC and that being a part of the auction notice, the appellant was under obligation to comply with and despite opportunity the appellant has failed to comply with both the twin conditions – High Court rightly set aside the auction – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJIV KUMAR JINDAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BCI STAFF COLONY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – Section 16-FF – held that the selection process concludes only after the mandatory approval of the District Inspector of Schools is granted – there is no rule for a deemed appointment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RACHNA HILLS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.…
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – an action instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ASIAN AVENUES PVT LTD. — Appellant SRI SYED SHOUKAT HUSSAIN — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Environmental Law – Mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the Protected Areas will be hazardous for the wildlife.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath and…
By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that Allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by Ayurved doctors – both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. DR. P. A. BHATT AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and…