Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 – Section 33(2) – HELD effect that initiation of proceedings for acquisition invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such proceedings null and void- unless sanction is obtained from the State Government for execution of any scheme therein, in terms of Section 24(2) of KHB Act, the actual act to complete the process, viz., execution shall not be effected thereon.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and…
Hindu Minority and Adoption Act, 1956 – Sections 6 and 12 – Change the surname of child HELD mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MRS. AKELLA LALITHA — Appellant Vs. SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – Rule 121 – Disciplinary Proceedings – Payment of allowances on reinstatement – Delay – There should not be any room for needless and unjustifiable delay on the part of the Management in concluding the proceedings under Rule 121.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUNIL SIKRI — Appellant Vs. GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…
Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 – Sections 17 and 20 – Land Acquisition – Compensation to land owners – Constitutional validity of Section 20 – While considering the validity of Section 20 of the 1973 Act, it may be necessary to consider the question as to whether the expression “material resources of the community” would include private property. Matter remanded to HC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. B.R. MURALIDHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…
Maxim lex fori, the Section provides that rules of limitation provided in a foreign jurisdiction are not applicable – However, the exception to this Rule is provided in Section 11 (2)(a), when the Contract i.e., the right itself expires – Similarly, Section 27 also recognizes the principle of extinguishment of Right to Property being an exception to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S BHAGWANDAS B. RAMCHANDANI — Appellant Vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
HELD the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Abetment of suicide – An FIR under Section 306 of the IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DAXABEN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Appeal against dismissal of writ for certificate Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) at the rate of 4% in respect of payments received by the Appellant from Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. towards work done out of India as well as within India. Judges differed matter put before CJI for orders as to bench
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…
Service Law – Caste Verification – Correctness of report – Mere fact that the Caste Verification Committee gave a report of about candidates in a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the correctness of the report.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M. V. CHANDRAKANTH — Appellant Vs. SANGAPPA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J. K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Section 18, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 HELD the monthly rent due and payable would be Rs. 10,000/- per month which cannot be said to be more than ten thousand rupees as monthly rent, the plaint therefore rightly dismissed invoking Or 7 r 11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH EIH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NADIA A VIRJI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 4797-4799…