Constitution of India – Article 226(2) – Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the impugned notification, on merit.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF GOA — Appellant Vs. SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SM. RANJAN BALA DASI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…
(CPC) – Order 9 Rule 9 – If the right of redemption is not extinguished, the provision like Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC will not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit because as in a partition suit, the cause of action in a redemption suit is a recurring one.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GANESH PRASAD — Appellant Vs. RAJESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 5 – Power to give directions – NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) that it should in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Act 1986.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. V.B.R. MENON AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster – Plea seeking an additional compensation – While sympathize with the victims of the awful tragedy, unable to disregard settled principles of law, particularly at the curative stage
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna,…
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly, when even the original writ petitioner also admitted that the possession of the land in question was taken on 22.09.1997, there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR — Appellant Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra,…
Notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and served upon the original writ petitioner but he did not collect the compensation and therefore, the same was again sent to the revenue deposit, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition in respect of land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DAYANAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
Service Law – District Judges Appointment – Only 10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination – Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination therefore shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVAS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Even when the Act, 2013 came into force the stay order continued to operate and due to which the possession of the land in question could not be taken, there shall be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
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 claim lapse of acquisition proceedings.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MANJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…