Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapse of acquisition
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MANJEET SINGH ANAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31(1) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Section 2(d), 11, 13 and 18(a) – Payment to State Governments in lieu of royalty – State being person interested in the land shall be entitled to the compensation/rental over and the amount of royalty leviable/payable under Section 18(a) of the Act, 1957
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Service Law – Dismissal – Order of penalty/punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate, there is no question of remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CONST SUNIL KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 and 201 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – No confessional statement – So-called communication by the accused addressed to PW-22 is as such not believed by the High Court being secondary evidence not been proved – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…
Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 – Section 18 – Even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18 of the Act, 1989.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAJANAND SHARMA — Appellant Vs. ADARSH SIKSHA PARISAD SAMITI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Filing of additional evidence – Exparte award – before the arbitral tribunal, such evidence was not there and nothing was on record on the amalgamation of the plots – High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ASHOK S. DHARIWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 54(14)(b) – Family pension – A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, not entitled to family pension
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 364 – Kidnapping and murder – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – Court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JABIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…
Wikipedia – note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution – These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowdsourced and user generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous occasions also – Courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (NOW HP INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.) — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA — Respondent (…