Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Delhi Development Authority v. Dewan Chand Pruthi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is prevented by court stay and compensation is tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nemchand Sharma & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act do not lapse if possession of land is taken, even if compensation is unpaid, overruling earlier precedent to clarify the interpretation of 'or' in the statute.
256645b9b32bf13fa873c9316b089b6ab0840edcd0d2d626239512acd28e1464
The Supreme Court held that possession and compensation under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act prior to the 2013 Act's enforcement remain valid, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court order.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Khajan Singh
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 was not tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Khajan Singh
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 was not paid, overruling earlier contrary decisions.
Delhi NCT Government v. Ratitram and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not lapse if possession is taken even without payment of compensation, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harak Singh Misra & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that possession under Section 24(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2013 means custody, upheld the transitional provisions preserving earlier rights, and mandated strict procedural compliance, allowing the appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Ratiram
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation (2014).
Delhi NCT Government v. Ratiram & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid within five years, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra Delhi Sarkar v. Rituram
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition lapses only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid for five years or more, overruling earlier contrary precedent and allowing the appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Ratiram
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken even though compensation was not paid, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd v. State of Odisha
The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's entitlement to compensation and premium for lands vested in a Government company under the Coal Bearing Areas Act, distinguishing such payments from royalty payable for mineral extraction.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd v. State of Odisha
The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's entitlement to compensation and premium for lands vested in a Government company under the Coal Bearing Areas Act, distinguishing such compensation from royalty payable under Section 18(a).
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Singh Anand
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings completed with possession and compensation prior to 2014 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and only recorded owners have locus to challenge acquisition lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Manjeet Singh Anand
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings from 1964 did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as possession was taken and compensation deposited, and a non-owner cannot challenge such acquisition.
The ESI Corporation v. M/s. Radhika Theatre
The Supreme Court held that the amendment to Section 1 of the ESI Act effective from 20.10.1989 applies prospectively to all establishments irrespective of employee count, restoring demand notices for contributions post that date.
The ESI Corporation v. M/s. Radhika Theatre
The Supreme Court held that the amendment to the ESI Act inserting Sub-section (6) of Section 1 applies prospectively from 20.10.1989, making all establishments liable for ESI contributions regardless of employee count, and restored demand notices issued post that date.
Indore Development Authority v. Manohara & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings initiated before the 2013 Act but completed after its commencement are governed by Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, ensuring compensation rights are preserved even if possession was taken post-2014.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Om Prakash (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.
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 full compensation was not tendered, and set aside the High Court's declaration of lapse.
The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Another v. Miss Hage Mamung & Others
The Supreme Court held that a Public Service Commission's decision to cancel questions with wrong answer keys and award pro-rata marks to all candidates is lawful and quashed the High Court's order directing re-evaluation of only two candidates' answer sheets.