HELD flat owners subsequently forming a cooperative society land allotted to builder who made construction HELD since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Cooperative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MR. ASPI CHINOY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna,…
HELD specifically rejected the contention that writ under Article 32 was barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue which was the subject matter of an earlier decision. – that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. No doubt that the right to information is also a fundamental right. In case of such a conflict, the Court is required to achieve a sense of balance – petitioners relegated to file writ under Art 32 to protect fundamental rights of its customers.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HDFC BANK LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
High Court has not considered the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent – High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a non-bailable warrant was issued against accused and thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021 – Order releasing respondent is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BOHATTI DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Compassionate Appointment – After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ANUSREE K.B. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
A and C Act, 1996 – Section 9 – (CPC) – Order 38 Rule 5 – – conduct on the part of the opposite/opponent party which may tantamount to any attempt on the part of the opponent/opposite party to defeat the award that may be passed in the arbitral proceedings, the Commercial Court may pass an appropriate order including the restrain order and/or any other appropriate order to secure the interest of the parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVIN CABLES LTD., AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…
Appointment of arbitrator – Matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act afresh and to pass an appropriate order after holding a preliminary inquiry/review on whether the dispute is arbitrable or not
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S. EMAAR INDIA LTD. — Appellant Vs. TARUN AGGARWAL PROJECTS LLP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 – Section 33(2)(b) – Termination – Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. BHARAT SINGH JHALA (DEAD) SON OF SHRI NATHU SINGH, THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER — Respondent…
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Section 3(1) – that the detenu had been released on bail by the Special Court despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, had not been brought to the notice of detaining authority – Detention order quashed – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUSHANTA KUMAR BANIK — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY & RESEARCH (CAPSR) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Respective suits are barred by the law of limitation, the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH C.S. RAMASWAMY — Appellant Vs. V.K. SENTHIL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…