Land Acquisition – As per the settled preposition of law, the compensation determined for the lands acquired subsequently cannot be said to be comparable at all. Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the same cannot be said to be comparable because of the fact that it has come on record that in the year 1976 when the lands in question were acquired, there was no development at all, however, subsequently, after 1980 the development had taken place – Appeal are partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAI PAL SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…
S L P – HELD There is a delay of approximately six years in preferring the special leave petition – No sufficient cause has been shown explaining the huge delay of six years – It is required to be noted that after the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court enhancing the compensation to Rs. 28.12 Per Square Yard, in fact, the respondents accepted the judgment. Dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…
HELD 1) The construction of the toll plaza at 194 kilometre was not illegal or arbitrary; (2) The direction by the High Court, to shift toll plaza, cannot be upheld and it is liable to be set aside; (3) The appellants will look at the barricades (closing of service roads) in regard to the toll plaza and permit such barricades only as are permitted in Rule 17 of the Rules. Any unauthorised barricades will be removed without any delay and at any rate within 2 weeks from today.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MADHUKAR KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…
(CPC) – S 92 – A suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit, and persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue. While deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE JAMIA MASJID — Appellant Vs. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
(CPC) – Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Findings of fact – Second appeal – Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be – Findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence – Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…
Insurance claim – Temporary registration of the vehicle expired – On the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, amounting to a clear violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This results in a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by this Court in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 324. entitling the insurer to repudiate the policy – Insurance claim denied.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR GODARA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela.…
HELD converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. In the order impugned in these petitions, the High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud – Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in the light of Neeharika (2021) SCC Online SC 315 case principles – High Court was perfectly justified in granting interim protection
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee…
Once the “Operational Creditor” has filed an application which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of IBC, if a notice has been received by “Operational Creditor” or if there is a record of dispute in the information utility
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
A and C Act, 1996 – S 11(6) – Appointment of sole arbitrator – HELD Parties have neither denied that there is no ‘arbitrable dispute’ between them nor have they challenged the existence of the arbitration clause(s) in the Construction Management Service Agreements – Considering that the primary twin-test envisioned under Section 11(6) of the Act has been satisfied by the Petitioner – Nature of disputes that have arisen between the parties, thus, can be adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAJAPURA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, JJ.…
(NDPS) – Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29, 37(1)(b), 37(1)(b)(ii), 42 and 67 – Cancellation of bail -A finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act – A confessional statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will not be admissible in evidence – Contention that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with is prima facie misplaced
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW — Appellant Vs. MD. NAWAZ KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…