Supreme Court of India
8,449 judgments
Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that exclusive development rights over immovable property constitute assets under the IBC, mandating their inclusion in the CIRP Information Memorandum, while insolvency authorities cannot evict third-party licensees beyond their licensed area.
Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia & Anr.
The Supreme Court upheld that exclusive development rights over immovable property held by a Corporate Debtor constitute assets under the IBC, entitling the Resolution Professional to take custody and control during CIRP, while protecting third-party licensee rights within licensed limits.
AND ANOTHER v. NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS
The Supreme Court held that urbanization notification under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 extinguishes the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and upheld possession rights of registered purchasers accordingly.
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon
The Supreme Court upheld NGT's directions mandating Vapour Recovery Systems at petroleum outlets but set aside its order requiring mandatory Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, directing adherence to CPCB guidelines instead.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V. B. R. Menon & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld NGT's power to mandate vapor recovery systems at petroleum outlets but set aside directions making Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate mandatory, emphasizing adherence to CPCB guidelines instead.
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon
The Supreme Court upheld NGT's directions mandating Vapour Recovery Systems at petroleum outlets but set aside the requirement for mandatory Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, directing strict adherence to CPCB guidelines instead.
M. R. English & Construction Pvt Ltd v. Som Datt Nibldson Ltd
The court held that the arbitration clause in the renewal lease and license agreement incorporated the settlement agreement as an indivisible part, directing the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
M. R. English & Construction Pvt Ltd v. Som Datt Nibldson Ltd
The court held that the arbitration clause in the settlement agreement applies to disputes under the incorporated lease and license agreement and directed the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration.
Shinhan Bank v. Carol Info Services Limited
The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause in an Amenities agreement is incorporated into a contemporaneous Leave and License agreement, entitling the petitioner to invoke arbitration directly.
Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector v. Rajesh Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken before the Act's commencement, even if compensation was unpaid.
भारत संघ v. राजेश कुमार
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation if possession was taken and compensation awarded or paid.
Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector v. Rajesh Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Ashok Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession could not be taken due to an operative court stay order continuing until the Act's commencement.
Bhoomi Adhijan Collector v. Ashok Kumar
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings pending under the 1894 Act are not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was prevented by stay orders before the new Act's commencement.
Land Acquisition Collector v. Ashok Kumar
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to an operative court stay continuing until the Act's commencement, overruling contrary precedents.
Delhi Government v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition under the 2013 Act is deemed complete only if possession or compensation was given before its commencement, and successors have locus to challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Kaur
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and clarified the correct interpretation of possession and compensation requirements to prevent lapse.
Delhi Government v. Manjeet Kaur & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is deemed valid if possession was not taken and compensation was not paid for five years prior to the Act's enforcement, barring fresh challenges to such acquisition.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Kaur
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, and a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse, setting aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
State of Rajasthan v. Dayanand & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition of vested land is deemed complete only if possession was taken or compensation was paid/deposited within five years prior to the Act's commencement, and non-payment or non-collection of compensation alone does not suffice for deemed acquisition.