Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Illegal sand mining – Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act empowers the State Government to recover the price of the illegally-mined mineral, in addition to recovery of rent, royalty or tax – Penalty recommended by the Central Empowered Committee ‘CEC’ for illegal sand mining is in addition to the penalty that can be imposed by the State Government in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAJRI LEASE LOI HOLDERS WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L.…
Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 2(4)(ii)(b) – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972 – Section 9 – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER — Appellant Vs. THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Service Law – Misconduct – Quantum of punishment – Scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope – Where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty – after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Name of the Managing Director first followed by the company’s name – Complaint not liable to be dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPESH RATHOD — Appellant Vs. DAYASHANKAR PRASAD CHAURASIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal…
Mining of sand – HELD A total ban on legal mining, apart from giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public exchequer – A balanced approach of sustainable development ensuring environmental safeguards, needs to be resorted to –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Setting aside of arbitral award – 2015 amendment to Section 34 will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have commenced prior to that date
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNAM SUDESH IYER — Appellant Vs. JACKIE KAKUBHAI SHROFF — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh ) Civil Appeal No.…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – The Arbitrator has committed a jurisdictional error by travelling beyond the terms of reference. Further, the Arbitrator has committed an error in permitting the Appellants to retain the jewellery. According to item No.(iv) of the terms of reference, the Arbitrator had to decide the entitlement of all the seven parties to equal shares in the event of finding that the jewellery is not stridhana property. Therefore, we approve the conclusion of the High Court by upholding the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUSAPATI ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PUSAPATI MADHURI GAJAPATHI RAJU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not ‘Deficiency Of Service’ For Filing Consumer Complaint
“In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation may approach the consumer…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) – Interpretation of -where proceedings for acquisition had been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been made, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply limited to determination of compensation. Where, however, an award had been made under the 1894 Act, clause (b) to Section 24(1) protects the vested rights of the parties (
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…
(IPC) – Ss 302, 376, 364, 366A, and 201 – Rape and Murder – Death Sentence converted to life imprisonment -Incarceration for life will serve as sufficient punishment and penitence for his actions, in the absence of any material to believe that if allowed to live he poses a grave and serious threat to the society, and the imprisonment for life in our opinion would also ward off any such threat – There is hope for reformation, rehabilitation, and thus the option of imprisonment for life is certainly not foreclosed and therefore acceptable – Conviction and sentences of appellant for offences under Sections 302, 376, 364, 366A and 201 of the Code uphold
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IRAPPA SIDDAPPA MURGANNAVAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ. )…