Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
L & T Finance Limited v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court directed strict timelines and monitoring for expeditious disposal and implementation of Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications, emphasizing the ministerial duty of magistrates to assist secured creditors without delay.
G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 9-D of the Central Excise Act and dismissed the appellants' challenge regarding procedural breaches, emphasizing that no lis remained pending for adjudication.
G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 9-D of the Central Excise Act and dismissed the appellants' challenge as no lis remained pending, emphasizing the requirement of reasoned opinion and opportunity to be heard before invoking section 9-D.
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Satpal
The Supreme Court modified the High Court's enhanced compensation awards in a land acquisition case, emphasizing valuation based on market value prior to the earliest notification and rejecting reliance on post-notification sale deeds.
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Satpal
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s enhanced compensation awards for land acquired for industrial development and expressway projects, emphasizing valuation based on pre-notification market values and proper application of sale deed evidence.
Delhi Development Authority v. Narvada Devi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation paid, and set aside the High Court's declaration of lapse.
Delhi Development Authority v. Narvada Devi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation paid, and set aside the High Court's declaration of lapse.
Debashis Sinha & Ors. v. M/s R.N.R. Enterprise
The Supreme Court held that developers have a statutory duty to obtain Completion Certificates and provide promised amenities, remanding a consumer complaint for fresh consideration after finding the consumer forum erred in dismissing it.
राज्य सरकार v. शक़ील अहमद
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely due to non-possession or non-payment of compensation before 2014, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Shakeel Ahmed
The Supreme Court overruled earlier precedent and held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken before its commencement, even if compensation was unpaid.
राज्य दिल्ली सरकार v. शक़ील अहमद
The Supreme Court clarified that pending land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed continued under the 2013 Act only if possession was not taken and compensation not paid for five years before 2014, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Shakeel Ahmed
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken or compensation paid prior to 2014, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Kanavati Vanijya Private Limited v. U. India Aegis Company Limited
The court allowed the appeal directing the insurer to pay the fire insurance claim, holding that rejection based solely on non-production of documents was unsustainable when the insurer's surveyor had assessed the loss without challenge.
Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Limited
The Supreme Court held that repudiation of a fire insurance claim solely on the ground of non-submission of documents is unsustainable when the insurer's surveyor has assessed the loss and the insurer does not dispute it, and accordingly allowed the insured's claim.
Kanavati Vanijya Private Limited v. U. India Aegis Company Limited
The court allowed the appeal and held that rejection of the fire insurance claim for non-submission of documents under policy condition 6(b) was unjustified where the insurer's surveyor's loss assessment was unchallenged.
Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Limited
The Supreme Court held that repudiation of a fire insurance claim solely on the ground of non-submission of documents is unsustainable when the insurer's surveyor's undisputed loss assessment exists, and directed payment of the assessed claim amount with interest.
Uttar Delhi Nagar Nigam v. Ram Chander Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings completed under the 1894 Act before 2014 cannot be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ram Chander Singh
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act with possession taken and compensation tendered does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, overruling the High Court's contrary decision.
उत्तर दिल्ली नगर निगम v. राम चंदर सिंह & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings validly completed under the 1894 Act before 2014 cannot be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, clarifying the conjunctive interpretation of possession and compensation requirements.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ram Chander Singh
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act cannot be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken and compensation deposited, overruling prior contrary precedent.