Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
LT OVERSEAS NORTH AMERICA INC & ANR. v. KRBL LIMITED
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief restraining the defendant from using packaging with prominent 'ROYAL' mark infringing the plaintiffs' trademark, allowing use of revised packaging with reduced prominence to avoid confusion.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's petition permitting construction of a suction tank in the mangrove buffer zone near Gorai Village, balancing public water supply needs with environmental safeguards under CRZ regulations.
M/s. Natvar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition challenging municipal property tax is not maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 217 of the MMC Act is available and mandated deposits are not made.
Prakash Bhagwat Shinde & Anr v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
The Bombay High Court directed the Pune Municipal Corporation to regularise 93 teachers appointed on leave vacancies with pay scale benefits, holding that only the School Education Department has jurisdiction over primary schools and censuring the Urban Development Department for overreach and delay.
Dilip Babubhai Shah v. Additional Resident Deputy Collector & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings under Section 23-A of the Fair Compensation Act, holding that awards made with consent of appearing persons interested are valid and non-consenting persons have alternative remedies.
Maruti Genba Veer and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that land holdings must be assessed as on the date of specific acquisition notification, and compulsory earlier acquisitions reduce holdings for subsequent acquisitions, quashing the acquisition of petitioners' land below the applicable slab.
Ashok Bansode v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that landowners who accepted compensation through private negotiation under the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 cannot claim rental compensation under earlier Land Acquisition Act provisions or Government Resolutions.
State Capital Delhi v. Subhash Chand Khurana
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse if physical possession is taken and land is used before the 2013 Act, thus dismissing claims for compensation under the 2013 Act.
National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Subhash Chander Khatri
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur
The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated or belatedly communicated adverse ACRs cannot be considered for promotion and directed fresh consideration of the petitioner’s promotion ignoring such ACRs under the rules prevailing at the time of the DPC meeting.
Delhi Development Authority v. Amit Jain
The court held that physical possession of land taken before 2014 without payment of compensation does not amount to deemed acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if acquisition was valid under the 1894 Act, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's declaration of deemed acquisition.
Delhi Development Authority v. Amit Jain
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 is not deposited in court, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Amrit Jain v. Others
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition is valid if physical possession or compensation payment is made, and non-payment or non-possession does not automatically invalidate acquisition.
Delhi Development Authority v. Amit Jain
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken, even if compensation is unpaid, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
The Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that the stringent bail provisions under Section 45 of the PMLA apply to anticipatory bail applications, setting aside the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail in a money laundering case.
Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy
The Supreme Court held that the stringent bail provisions under Section 45 of the PMLA apply to anticipatory bail applications, quashing the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail in a money laundering case involving serious economic offences.
Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court allowed further investigation by the State police despite chargesheet filing and framing of charges but refused transfer of investigation to CBI, emphasizing the constitutional courts' power to ensure fair investigation and trial.
P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan
The Supreme Court held that an unexplained delay of 853 days in depositing the balance sale consideration disentitles the decree-holder from extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and allowed rescission of the agreement to sell.
P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan
The Supreme Court held that an unexplained delay of 853 days in depositing the balance sale consideration disentitles the plaintiff from extension of time under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and allowed rescission of the agreement to sell.
fd0aa39563874911a9e04fdb8e2f78894350147f3a2e4d0cc97a85c4dea38ba2
The court upheld the petition for enforcement of possession rights, directing restoration of possession to the petitioner in accordance with prior orders, emphasizing strict procedural compliance and rejecting baseless objections.