Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Government of Tamil Nadu & Others v. R. Thamraiselevam
The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of Tamil Nadu Government Orders constituting Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells due to absence of statutory definitions and guidelines, emphasizing the need for clear legislation to prevent arbitrary police action.
Tamil Nadu Government v. R. Thamaraiselvam & Ors.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of Tamil Nadu government orders establishing special anti-land grabbing units and courts due to absence of statutory definitions and guidelines, emphasizing the need for clear legislation to regulate such offences.
Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thamraiselevam
The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of Tamil Nadu Government Orders constituting Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells due to absence of statutory definitions and guidelines, emphasizing the need for clear legislation to prevent arbitrary police powers.
Delhi Development Authority v. Narendra Kumar Jain
The Supreme Court held that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge land acquisition or claim deemed lapse under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, setting aside the High Court's contrary decision.
Shiv Kumar v. Union of India
The court held that subsequent title holders have locus standi to challenge land acquisition and claim compensation under the 2013 Act, overruling earlier precedent to the contrary and allowing the appeal.
Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske & Ors
The Supreme Court held that a duly registered sale deed carries a presumption of valid ownership transfer which cannot be negated without clear evidence, and that civil courts lack jurisdiction to decide issues under the Fragmentation Act without referring to the competent authority, thereby restoring possession decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Damodar Narayan Sawale v. Tejrao Bajirao Mhask
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a registered sale deed transferring agricultural land, rejecting the High Court's voidance under the Maharashtra Land Fragmentation Act, and restored the plaintiff's ownership and possession rights.
Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske & Ors
The Supreme Court held that a duly registered sale deed carries a presumption of valid ownership transfer and civil courts have jurisdiction to decide possession suits unless barred by statute, setting aside the High Court's voidance of the sale deed under the Fragmentation Act.
Om Prakash v. Commissioner of Police
The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal’s limitation-based dismissal of a pay fixation claim, holding that such claims constitute a recurring cause of action and remanded the matter for merits consideration.
Siemens Limited v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that unreasonable delay of nearly ten years in completing assessment proceedings under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Cess on Entry of Goods) Rules, 1996 renders such assessment liable to be quashed.
Shelton Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that NMMC cannot reserve CIDCO-vested plots without statutory procedure, affirming petitioners' allotments and directing CIDCO to accept lease premium payments without penalties following Supreme Court dismissal of related SLPs.
Mira Bhayander Mahanagarpalika Shramik Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited v. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Konkan
The Bombay High Court held that deregistration of a cooperative society under Section 21A requires specific statutory grounds and cannot be based on economic viability or name similarity alone, upholding the petitioner's right to registration subject to conditions.
M/s. Bhima Mahabharat Builders and Developers v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the appellate authority under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lacks jurisdiction to determine buffer zones for Solid Waste Management Projects, which must be fixed following the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and set aside the 2016 order fixing a reduced buffer zone.
Pinkesh Dhiraj Patel & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that prima facie evidence of an overt act with knowledge likely to cause death warrants trial under Section 304 IPC and dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
Arvind Narayan Golande v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that lawful acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act vests ownership in the government despite absence of a Section 9(3) order under the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, dismissing petitioners' claims based on delay and procedural irregularities.
Independent Thought v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that the POCSO Act overrides Cr.P.C restrictions on prosecuting sexual offences against minor wives and that courts may extend limitation periods under Sections 472 and 473 Cr.P.C, while declining to extend limitation under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
VMVS TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1) & ANR.
The Delhi High Court set aside the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for unreasonable conclusions on escaped income and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with a personal hearing.
Inder Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Navneet Kaur & Ors.
The Delhi High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct reassignment and expeditious disposal of pending execution and objection petitions before a Commercial Court, emphasizing timely justice without curtailing parties’ rights.
National Highways Authority of India v. Progressive Constructions Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside parts of an arbitral award made without evidentiary support, holding that awards without evidence can be challenged and set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
M/S EVERSHINE BUILDWELL PVT LTD v. M/S WIANXX IMPEX PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous after the arbitral award was passed, rendering challenges to interlocutory orders on fee defaults and counterclaim termination moot.