Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 48(1) and 30 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 111 and 106 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 65, 66 and 67 – Suit for possession – Limitation – HELD Appellants-plaintiffs have claimed possession from the defendant alleging him to be the tenant and that he had not handed over the leased property after determination of the lease – Therefore, such suit would fall within Article 67 of the Limitation Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. — Appellant Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…
Service Law – Pay scale – When a benefit for the first time is extended to a category of employees, the State can always fix a rational cut off date and it was not obligatory for the State to extend the benefit of analogy of the CBI organisation of the Center
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar…
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17, 17(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(2)(v) – Suit for declaration HELD When legislature has specifically excluded applicability of clause (b) and (C) with regard to any decree or order of a Court, applicability of Section 17(1)(b) cannot be imported in Section 17(2)(v) by any indirect method – Decree and order did not require registration and were fully covered by Section 17(2)(vi), which contains exclusion from registration as required in Section 17(1)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. — Appellant Vs. ANGREZ KAUR & ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha JJ. )…
Surrender Of Passport Can Be Ordered To Ensure Presence Of Parties In Contempt Proceedings: SC HELD “In order to ensure the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders including the surrender of passport.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAM SAHNI — Appellant Vs. ARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
We are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others.” HELD that section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar And Sanjiv…
HC In Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction Can Pass An Order Interdicting Legal Fiction, Provided It Had Not Come Into Operation: SC HELD “The scope of Article 226 is very wide and can be used to remedy injustice wherever it is found.”
HC In Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction Can Pass An Order Interdicting Legal Fiction, Provided It Had Not Come Into Operation: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 20 March 2020 10:50 AM…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 – Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 – Rules 7 and 27A – Head Constable – Promotion – It is a settled law that prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given if an age limit is prescribed, are essentially the matters of policy. HELD Prescription of such limit or the extent of relaxation to be given, cannot ordinarily be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBODH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Ajay…
The order of the NGT directing the appellant to conduct a rapid EIA is upheld, though for the reasons which we have indicated above. We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the ultimate decision of the SEAC or the SEIAA. Liberty is granted to the parties to approach this Court upon any grievance from the decision of the SEAC or the SEIAA pursuant to the order of this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. MR SUDHAKAR HEGDE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta,…
The instant suit by the legal heirs of “G” was filed more than 30 years later on 11.11.1987 after his death – Plaintiffs failed to established or lead any evidence with regard to availability of funds with “G” so as to make an endeavour to purchase his own property in the auction sale through Govindan. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 66(1) – Auction sale
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALANIAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMALAKANNAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 14 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale – Setting aside of – Extension of time – Section 5 of the Act which deals with extension of time or condonation of delay is not applicable to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak…