Latest Post

National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and its amended provisions extended to NH Act — Court clarified that landowners acquired lands under NH Act between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to solatium and interest — Review Petition filed by NHAI arguing financial burden was underestimated rejected, but clarification on delayed claims issued. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 102 — Applicability — Provision contemplates a situation where a judgment debtor transfers property after institution of suit to a person who then obstructs execution — Not applicable where respondents derived title from independent registered sale deeds, not from the judgment debtor. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court’s award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners to benefit from higher compensation — Object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners. Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not necessarily deduct it — SERC’s power to determine tariff includes considering incentives — Parliament’s allocation of funds for GBI does not prevent SERC from considering it in tariff — SERC must exercise its power harmoniously with other stakeholders to achieve policy objectives. Contract Law — Award of Tender — Judicial Review — High Court should exercise restraint when reviewing tender evaluation processes, especially in technical matters, unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, arbitrariness, or irrationality — A marginal difference in scores, as seen in this case, does not automatically warrant interference, especially when the owner has the right to accept or reject bids and the contract is already underway.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 8 and 16 – Group of companies doctrine – An arbitration agreement which has been entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S DISCOVERY ENTERPRISES PRTIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Service Matters

LIC recruitment – Regularization – All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof – Payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RANBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 and 12A – Real estate project – the Promoter has filed a specific undertaking specifying therein that the cost of the flat would not be escalated and that he would honour the BBA signed by the previous management – Promoter is permitted to complete the project as per the deliberations.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND MURTI — Appellant Vs. SONI INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. )…

Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9(a), Articles 20(a) and 45(f) – Once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 300-A – Construction/widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation the action of the respondents would be arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15(1), 341 and 342 – Promotion – SC/ST Category -An obligation on the part of Parliament, to provide clarity about the kind of protection, regarding the status of such individuals forced to chose one among the newly reorganized states, and ensure that they are not worse off as a result of reorganization –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AKHILESH PRASAD — Appellant Vs. JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and S.…

Service Matters

HELD there appears no reason for withholding the names of the present appellants and merely because they were appointed at a later point of time, would not deprive them from claiming to become a member of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is applicable to the employees who were appointed on or before 1st April, 2003.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. RANJITHARAJ — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

You missed