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…
CrPC) – Section 205 – Magistrate may dispence with personal appearance of accused – In any event there could be no justification for not dispensing with the personal appearance of the Appellants, when the Company had entered appearance through an authorized officer. HELD all directors summoned on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUNITA PALITA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal…
HELD in a suit praying for putting up a boundary wall/fence filed by the plaintiffs, the High Court in a second appeal could not have given the findings that the defendants were entitled to only 10 cents as kudikidappukars. Trial court order restored
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAGHAVAN SASIKUMAR — Appellant Vs. PARAMESWARAN NADAR SATHYANANADHAN NADAR KANAKOTTU PADIPPURA VEEDU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
IBC – Application under Section 7 not barred if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari,…










