Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Raj Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.
Ratiram v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, granting the petitioner a declaration accordingly.
Ajab Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years from the award date.
Gajinder v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years, declaring the petitioner’s acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-payment.
SAMO v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.
Balraj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of possession claims.
Gajraj Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, granting the petitioner a declaration to that effect.
Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. State Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. v. C.V. Viswanatham
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by directing a final payment to the respondent upon superannuation and quashed related contempt proceedings.
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Km. Mamta
The Supreme Court held that a first appellate court under the Motor Vehicles Act must give reasoned findings on all issues and remanded the case for fresh disposal due to the High Court's cryptic dismissal of the appeal.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd v. M/s. Prathyusha Resources & Infra Private Limited
The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for an escalation claim in a work contract begins when the dispute arises, not on contract completion, and upheld the arbitration award as not time-barred.
SURESH KUMAR JUNEJA v. RAJ KUMAR
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's civil appeal permitting the original defendant to file a written statement belatedly and directed costs to be paid to the respondent.
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
The Supreme Court set aside the suspension of six Tamil Nadu MLAs for breach of privilege due to violation of natural justice, holding that failure to provide material evidence to the accused members invalidated the Assembly's resolution.
State of Maharashtra v. Syed Umar Sayed Abbas
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a murder case due to unreliable eyewitness identification and delayed, flawed Test Identification Parades, emphasizing the necessity of prompt and credible identification to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
State of Jharkhand v. Tata Steel Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that deferred tax repayment must be completed within 13 years from the start of deferment eligibility, not from the date of deferment application, and imposed reasonable interest while denying penalty under the Jharkhand VAT Act.
Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. v. Grocery Market & Shops Board; Supreme Petro-Chem Limited v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the Maharashtra Mathadi Act and Grocery Markets Scheme to factories manufacturing petrochemical and grocery products, affirming the State Government's final decision and emphasizing the welfare purpose of the legislation.
B. Virupakshaiah v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of twelve accused in a murder case due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, failure to prove conspiracy, and lack of credible recovery evidence, granting them benefit of doubt.
Pampati Sathamma (D)th. Lrs. v. Pampat Gangaram
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals directing the respondent to transfer one-third share of the properties or their value to the appellants, setting aside the High Court judgment.
Tekan alias Tekram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld the rape conviction of a blind victim and directed the State to pay lifelong monthly victim compensation, emphasizing the need for uniform compensation schemes for vulnerable rape victims.
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that drivers licensed for light motor vehicles need no separate endorsement to drive transport vehicles within that category, clarifying licensing and insurance liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Hamant Yashwant Dhage v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court directed registration of FIR and expeditious investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, clarifying procedural obligations of police and Magistrates in cognizable offence investigations.