Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil…
(IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 201, 120B – Murder – Despite and without taking into consideration any of the material forming part of the charge sheet and without even considering the seriousness of the offences alleged; material collected during the investigation, the High Court has by a nonspeaking order has directed to release the accused on bail – Order HC quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 67 – Transfer of ownership – Where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 125 and 127B – Whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the Act? – Divergent view regarding the issue – Matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAMAL MANOJBHAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Writ Petition…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 101 and 106 – Burden of proof – Burden of proof is always with the prosecution – – Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.530…
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 125 and 127B – Whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the Act? – Divergent view regarding the issue – Matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAMAL MANOJBHAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Writ Petition…
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 185 – Arrears of property tax and water tax until the date of confirmation of sale, would qualify as the expenses for “preserving, realising or getting in” the assets of the company and thus, shall have to be paid in priority by Official Liquidator.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR — Appellant Vs. UJJAIN NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…
IMPORTANT — Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 145(5) – Majority of Judges -It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL — Appellant Vs. GOVT.OF N.C.T OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE)…
In the present case, the clear legislative intent, of inserting a carefully worded entry, which was a “hybrid” one, i.e. describing an article that contained medicinal ingredients, as well as those used for cosmetics, and yet placing such a creature (“neither beast nor fowl” so to say) in the category of cosmetics, ruled out altogether any interpretive scope of classifying it as a medicinal preparation, or drug or medicine
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEINZ INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERELA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil…
Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – IPC – Earlier the FIR thereof having been quashed by the High Court, even prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, even for the sake of argument, if accepted, helps the Appellant and tilt the balance in his favour – The Appellant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case for the grant of bail – Appeal Allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal…