Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
282660399f2afb2711e4916999547f04db27e5ea80e894e5c69bb509816aaff7
The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC based on complete circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of common intention, dismissing the accused's appeal.
1cd1497c2ff2c4f471182c84c1444464fb35700e0b5094f00e374dae7582d424
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence for murder, affirming the application of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act and the principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC.
राज्य राजधानी दिल्ली सरकार v. दिल्ली विकास प्राधिकरण
The Supreme Court clarified the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, held that acquisition is deemed if possession or compensation is not effected within five years, and allowed the Government's appeal setting aside the High Court's order.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dhannu
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's order declaring land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, holding that only recorded owners have locus to claim lapse and both non-possession and non-payment of compensation must coexist for lapse.
राज्य राजधानी दिल्ली सरकार v. धूनू & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that adverse possession claims under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot continue once possession is taken and acquisition proceedings are complete under the 1894 Act, setting aside the High Court's declaration of adverse possession over public land.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dhannu
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's declaration of lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying that lapse occurs only if both possession and compensation are absent for five years, and only recorded owners have locus to claim compensation.
Bhoomi Evam Bhavan Nirman Vibhag v. Manish Seth & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition proceedings do not lapse if possession or compensation payment occurred within five years before the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Land and Building Department v. Manish Sethi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and affirming the law in Indore Development Authority.
Bhoomi Evam Bhavan Nirman Vibhag v. Manish Seth & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation paid under the 1894 Act within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Land and Building Department v. Manish Sethi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken prior to the Act's commencement, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. MGS (India) Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser of land after acquisition proceedings has no locus to challenge the acquisition or claim lapsing under the Land Acquisition Act, setting aside the High Court's order declaring acquisition lapsed.
Delhi Development Authority v. MGS (India) Pvt. Limited
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser of land after the commencement of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act has no right to challenge such proceedings, upholding the validity of the acquisition.
Delhi Development Authority v. MGS (India) Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser of land after acquisition proceedings and award declaration has no locus to challenge acquisition lapsing under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, setting aside the High Court's contrary order.
Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
The Supreme Court ruled that nominated members of the Delhi Municipal Corporation do not have voting rights even at the first meeting for electing the Mayor, and the Mayor's election must precede that of the Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members.
Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
The Supreme Court ruled that nominated members of the Delhi Municipal Corporation have no voting rights even at the first meeting where the Mayor is elected, and the Mayor's election must precede that of the Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members.
IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited v. T. Muruganandam & Others
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant to continue operating its thermal power plants subject to compliance with all environmental clearance conditions, holding that appeals against corrigenda imposing additional conditions are maintainable before the NGT.
IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited v. T. Muruganandam
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant to continue operating its thermal power plants subject to compliance with all original and additional environmental clearance conditions, while leaving open the question of mandatory cumulative impact assessment studies.
S.M. Pasha v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of the petition challenging a terminated development agreement, directed disclosure of the fresh agreement to tenants, and upheld parties' rights to challenge new agreements and terminations before appropriate forums.
S. M. Pasha v. Maharashtra State
The Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition following termination of the earlier development agreement and directed disclosure of the new agreement to tenants, allowing all parties to challenge agreements before appropriate forums.
S.M. Pasha v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of a petition challenging a terminated development agreement, directed furnishing of the fresh agreement to tenants, and granted liberty to challenge the new agreement or termination before appropriate forums.