HELD It appears to us that the absence of a comma is a mistake and in fact according to us, a comma should be read after ‘shamilat’ and before ‘taraf’ in the latter part of the section also – Word ‘shamilat’ has to be read with all four ‘taraf’, ‘patti’, ‘panna’ and ‘thola’ – A land can be ‘shamilat deh’ only if it is ‘shamilat taraf’, ‘shamilat patti’, ‘shamilat panna’, or ‘shamilat thola’. In case the word shamilat is missing from any of these four terms, then the land cannot be said to be belonging to a group of people and could never become ‘shamilat deh’ land HELD This Court allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 03.07.2008 and the orders of all the authorities below – Name of the appellant be entered in the column of ownership with the entry ‘shamlat patti’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRAM — Appellant Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KATWAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 – HELD the Division Bench of the High Court has completely erred in law in holding that the appellant has delayed the challenge of his appointment vide order dated 22nd December, 2010. The appellant was appointed pursuant to a direction issued earlier by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has directed to re-cast the select list and in such select list,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. JAYACHANDRAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil…
HELD We have stated the facts of the present case only by way of narration of events and explaining the chronology. We shall not be taken to have dealt with merits or demerits of the rival contentions of the parties. The merits of the matter shall be gone into independently by the concerned authorities without being influenced, in any way, by any of the observations made by the High Court and this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1 — Respondent ( Before :…
Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 HELD our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N.C. SANTHOSH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…
Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act I960 – (i) Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 54(3), as special provisions for the appointment of the CEO of Cooperative Banks confer upon them the power to appoint their CEO (ii) However, where a Cooperative Bank is a Central Society within the ambit of Section 49-E(2), the CEO shall be appointed from among the officers of the cadre constituted and maintained under Section 54, where such cadre has been constituted. (iii) Where no cadre has been constituted under Section 54, the CEO of a Cooperative Bank which is a Central Society under Section 49-E(2) shall be appointed with the prior approval of the Registrar as stipulated in Section 49-E(2)(b)(ii).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK MARYADIT — Appellant Vs. ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Sections 31 and 32 – Change of land use from commercial to residential – Ujjain Municipal Corporation was not made a party and had no opportunity to represent their stand on the change in the layout plan – HELD It proper to direct the appellant-board and the authorities to ensure that the areas/land earmarked for the primary school and park/garden are not converted into residential plots – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. VIJAY BODANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sharad A. Bobde,…
Consumer Protection Act, – Section 13(2)(a) – Whether Section 13(2)(a), which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory – District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet…
VIRTUAL CURRENCY (VC) CASE :: Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Section 45JA and 45L – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Section 35A read with 36(1)(a) and 56 – Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 – Section 10(2) read with Section 18 – Virtual currencies – Position as on date is that VCs are not banned
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and…
Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 6 – Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Section 16(3), 10(6), 46 and 47 – Contravention referred to in Section 10(6) by its very nature is a continuing offence –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBORNO BOSE — Appellant Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 – Sections 4(2), 4(5), 7 and 20 – Loan – Recovery proceedings – Claim by the lender Bank towards which a decree had already been granted in respect of one claim and the other claim is pending consideration. The fact as to whether in the matter of take over, the liabilities were also included is one aspect of the matter HELD This is an aspect which is to be examined after providing opportunity to the parties, if need be, after tendering evidence in that regard – Question of liability could neither have been decided in the writ proceedings before the High Court nor in this appeal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UCO BANK — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…