(CrPC) – S 319 – Power to summon additional accused – Whether the trial court has the power under S/319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended HELD the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian…
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 overruled by Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 HELD The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Lapse of acquisiton proceedings HELD in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MAHIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
Bihar Finance Act, 1981 – Section 13(1)(b) – Entitlement to Concessional Rate – Only in a case where oxygen gas is used as “raw material”, the same would be taxed at the rate of 2% of the sales tax, which otherwise is chargeable @ 3% on the sale thereof
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LINDE INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
ISRO Spy Case – While granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused, the High Court has neither considered the allegations against the respective accused nor the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during the investigation of Crime – Remanded
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. P.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal…
Service Law – Appointment – Candidate could not have been denied the appointment solely on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, if he was acquitted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR — 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 – The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH), NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SURESH B. KAPUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA SAINI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Order 33 Rule 1, 5 CPC – HELD when having prima facie found that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by res judicata it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application to sue as indigent persons.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOLOMON SELVARAJ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. INDIRANI BHAGAWAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…