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…
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,…