Judgments - APPLICATION U/s 378
JIBAN KRISHNA MONDAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
ARUNBHAI KALYANBHAI SUTARIYA Vs. NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.& ANR
V.KRISHNASWAMY & ANR. Vs. KARNATAKA RAJYA KAIGARIKA SAHAKARI &ANR.
MOHD. AKBAR Vs. ASHOK SAHU & ORS.
Broadly, it is in the above-mentioned background the instant SLP came to be filed complaining that notwithstanding the mandate of Section 86, sub- Section (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court has not disposed of the election petition so far. It was the pious hope of the Parliament that election disputes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be resolved expeditiously. The purpose is obvious. The tenure of the members of the Parliament as well as the Legislature of Full Judgment
M/S SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
The short question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether after the disposal of the appeal, the Court Receiver stands discharged or whether he continues in his office till an order of discharge is passed by the Court? In our view, when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession Full Judgment
SHYAM LAL Vs. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff-appellant became a trespasser after expiry of the lease period or continued to be a tenant having protection for eviction under the tenancy laws. Taking into consideration the various tenancy laws applicable in the State of Punjab and the law discussed by this Court and the High Court, in our considered opinion the trial court, the appellate court Full Judgment
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS
Any determination under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., Full Judgment
K.P. Manu Versus Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate
As we perceive, the controversy fundamentally has three arenas, namely, (1) whether on conversion and at what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste; (ii) whether after his eligibility is accepted and his original community on a collective basis takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH
These appeals raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of a proviso contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short the "1995 Act"). It is well settled that the provisions of a statute must be read harmoniously together. However, if this is not possible then it is settled law that where there is a conflict between two Sections, and you cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision Full Judgment
ASSISTANT G.M. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS Vs. RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY
M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the Full Judgment
BATHIDA DEV. AUTH. FORMERLY KNOWN AS (PUDA) Vs. IQBAL SINGH AND ORS
This Appeal assails the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and declared that the acquisition had lapsed for the reason that the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, not paid. This is sufficient ground for protection under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Appeal is dismissed in the above terms. Full Judgment