Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs. Dispute over cadre change versus mere transfer — A transfer is a change of posting within the same service without altering seniority or substantive status, differing from a cadre change which involves a structural shift between services with significant implications for seniority and promotional avenues, requiring specific authority. Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.
Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – Section 94(1)(nn) and 95(1)(f) – Pension Scheme – State Government can always exercise the powers under clause (nn) of subsection (1) Section 94 of the 1965 Act for determining the conditions of service of the officers (other than the Housing Commissioner) and employees of the Board

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and…

Lapse of land acquisition proceedings – – if the compensation has not been paid due to inter se dispute between the co-owners, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to make a grievance that once the compensation was not paid, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING AND ORS. — Appellant Vs. ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…

Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 – Rule 4A – – The object and purpose of Rule 4A would be permitting the family of Vadar community to continue their traditional profession of stone crushing by hand by extracting the stone up to 200 brass annually without payment of any fee or royalty – Rule 4A is not meant for the lease for commercial use.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA RAJYA VADAR SAMAJ SANGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 45(4) – Capital gains – Assets revalued and the credit into the capital accounts of the respective partners can be said to be “transfer” and which fall in the category of “OTHERWISE” and therefore, the provision of Section 45(4) inserted by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1988 shall be applicable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 23 — Appellant Vs. M/S. MANSUKH DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Acquisition of land – If there is a large tract of land under acquisition but is capable of being used for the purpose for which smaller plots are used and is situate in a fully developed area with little or no requirement of any further development to be made, there would be no need for deduction of the value.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Sections 129 and 132 – Exemption from payment of general tax – – correct to hold that provisions from Section 141AA to Section 141F form a complete code when tax has to be computed and paid on the carpet area method, and for such computation, reference cannot be made to the provisions of Sections 129 to 133 which relate to property tax payable on annual rateable value.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA — Appellant Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Dismissal – CISF Constable – Gross negligence and dereliction of duty – – Desirability of continuing the constable in the Armed Forces is certainly questionable and the Disciplinary Authority could not be expected to wear blinkers in respect of his past conduct while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on him

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS @PPELLANT Vs. SUBRATA NATH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…

You missed