Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that once the fresh notification is issued by
Supreme Court: In a case where the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was dispensed with despite there
Supreme Court: In an important ruling on Land Acquisition and Requisition law, the bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., settled a decade-old land-acquisition dispute by directing NOIDA
“A legislature is deemed to be the main protagonist of the public interest at large. For, the legislature is the bulwark of a democratic polity.”
Supreme Court: In an interesting case regarding land acquisition by government of Assam for setting up a plastic park, the Division Bench
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C. T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partly allowed the instant petition filed under Section
“The courts’ role is to act as the guarantor and jealous protector of the people’s liberties: be they assured through the freedoms, and the right to equality and religion or cultural rights under Part III, or the right against deprivation, in any form, through any process other than law.”
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), held that homebuyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of
Bombay High Court: B.U. Debadwar, J., observed the difference between Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in determining the
Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling the 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, JJ
Karnataka High Court: The Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. dismissed the appeals on the ground
Tripura High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arindam Lodh, J. disposed of an appeal filed under Section 54 of Land
Supreme Court: In interesting turn of events, the 3-judge bench of Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, JJ disagreed with
Supreme Court: In the case where the Court was deciding the issue relating to interpretation of section 24 of the Right to
Supreme Court: The Bench of Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ asked CJI to form a larger bench to decide the question
Supreme Court: Answering an important question of law, the bench of Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ held that the subsequent purchaser,
Allahabad High Court: Recently, an issue arose before the Court as to whether a person interested, who has not accepted the award made under
Supreme Court: The Bench of A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ held that a post-acquisition allottee of land is necessary or proper
Allahabad High Court: While deciding a matter concerning acquisition of land of church by government the Divisional Bench of V.K. Shukla and Mahesh