Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 18 and 28A(3) – Acquisition of land – Compensation – A person who has not accepted award made under Section 28A(2) is not precluded from making an application to Collector with request to refer matter to Court
(2010) 11 JT 45 : (2011) 1 RCR(Civil) 149 : (2010) 10 SCC 650 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO — Appellant Vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD.…
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section – 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) – Possession of the suit premises – Predecessor in interest of the respondents instituted a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act) for possession of the suit premises against the appellants-tenants.
(1995) 7 JT 400 : (1995) 5 SCALE 481 : (1995) 6 SCC 576 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 76(c) – Mortgage – Redemption of – Mortgagee claiming himself to be in occupation of land as tenant – No consent of mortgagor for creation of tenancy by mortgagee – In terms of mortgage deed – Mortgagee neither managed property as a tenant nor inherited tenancy rights under Tenancy Act – Mortgagee cannot claim any tenancy right in respect of land.
(2001) 1 JT 401 : (2000) 8 SCALE 463 : (2000) 5 SCR 756 Supp : (2001) AIRSCW 9 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PURAN CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND…
Dismissal—False document—Punishment modified from dismissal to termination from service, in view of good career of 27 years and his expertise.
2007(5) LH (SC) 3409 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 4842 of 2007…
Dishonour of Cheque–Notice–An omnibus notice without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque would not subserve the requirement of law. Dishonour of Cheque–Notice–Demand of payment within 10 days–Whether notice valid ? YES. Dishonour of Cheque–Notice–Unless a notice is served in conformity with Proviso (b) appended to Section 138 of the Act, the complaint petition would not be maintainable.
2007(5) LH (SC) 3404 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2005…
Attempt to Murder—First part thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part of the victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused thereunder.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3389 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 1427…
Dowry Death—Dowry demand—Defence version that since the accused possessed scooter as well as motorcycle, there was no necessity to make demand of scooter ; is totally irrelevant. Remarks by Judge—If that part of the evidence is not consistent with the facts on record, the Court may not accept it. But only for that reason, the Court should not make disparaging remarks.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3380 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce P. Sathasivam Criminal Appeal No. 1612 of…
Decree obtained by fraud—Such a judgment, decree or order —by the first Court or by the final Court— has to be treated as nullity by every Court. When sale to become absolute be set aside—Where a third party challenges the judgment-debtor’s title by filing a suit against the auction-purchaser, the decree holder and the judgment-debtor should be necessary parties to that suit and if the suit is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the money to the auction-purchaser.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3365 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 4727…
Presumption of Dowry Death—Distinction between—Section 113A of the Act relates to offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Code, whereas Section 113B relates to Section 304-B thereof. Dowry demand—It was not necessary that demand of any particular item should have been made.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3359 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12–lnsurance–Theft of Vehicle-Delay of 21/2 months in giving intimation of theft by insured to insurer-It amounts to breach of policy-Insured was obligated to give intimation immediately after theft came to his knowledge-Mere intimating the police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance-Claim held to be rightly repudiated.
2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 558 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 598 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member V.K. Jain Revision Petition No. 176 of…