Latest Post

National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and its amended provisions extended to NH Act — Court clarified that landowners acquired lands under NH Act between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to solatium and interest — Review Petition filed by NHAI arguing financial burden was underestimated rejected, but clarification on delayed claims issued. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 102 — Applicability — Provision contemplates a situation where a judgment debtor transfers property after institution of suit to a person who then obstructs execution — Not applicable where respondents derived title from independent registered sale deeds, not from the judgment debtor. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court’s award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners to benefit from higher compensation — Object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners. Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not necessarily deduct it — SERC’s power to determine tariff includes considering incentives — Parliament’s allocation of funds for GBI does not prevent SERC from considering it in tariff — SERC must exercise its power harmoniously with other stakeholders to achieve policy objectives. Contract Law — Award of Tender — Judicial Review — High Court should exercise restraint when reviewing tender evaluation processes, especially in technical matters, unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, arbitrariness, or irrationality — A marginal difference in scores, as seen in this case, does not automatically warrant interference, especially when the owner has the right to accept or reject bids and the contract is already underway.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 140 and 141—Accident—Compensation—In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child’s life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parent’s claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2874 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No. 2479…

Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 23 – Interim maintenance – Appeal against the order – Normally no appeal against order fixing interim maintenance be entertained – But, grant of Rs. 700/- per month by High Court, extremely on lower side – Considering the financial position of husband, Rs. 1,500/- per month granted as interim maintenance

  (2004) 3 CTC 399 : (2004) 1 DMC 652 : (2004) 4 SCALE 822 : (2004) 9 SCC 617 : (2004) AIRSCW 3042 : (2004) 3 Supreme 422 SUPREME…

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, court find that the Division Bench has committed gross error in overlooking the contents of the order of the learned Single Judge in which the finding has been recorded that the employer has committed contempt by not paying full dues of the workmen under the award

  (2005) 7 SCC 40 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MODI TELEFIBRES LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUJIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : D.M. Dharmadhikari, J;…

You missed