Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree; however, in the event of an ambiguity in the decree on material aspects, it is the duty of the Court to interpret the decree in the process of giving true effect to it.
The Court clarified that limitation under Section 34, Arbitration Act, begins only upon disposal of proceedings formally instituted and entertained under Section 33 by the Arbitral Tribunal.
“A large number of cases disclosed unjustified delay of nearly three decades in completing land acquisition proceedings even after taking possession of the petitioners’ lands which resulted not only in grave prejudice to the landowners but also in substantial and avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer.”
“The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme was for the benefit of only those who were permanently residing in the area and who were to be rendered houseless and landless on account of acquisition proceedings for the purpose of construction.”
“In the absence of any specific law enabling the acquisition of property belonging to a minority educational institution, it was not possible for the State to acquire the Venkateswara School’s land.”
Supreme Court highlighted that the judgment in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736 has been rendered after considering the relevant provisions of the Statute and the principles of interpretation. However, the judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 16 SCC 445 is a short judgment only referring to the text of Section 28-A(1) of 1894 Act.
The appellant filed an objection before the Executing Court to delete their name from the execution proceeding and to insert the name of Executive Engineer PWD, NH Division as Judgment debtor but the Executing Court disposed of objection on the ground that matter was already decided.
Supreme Court considered what would be fair and just compensation to do justice between the parties so that landowners get a fair and reasonable compensation for losing their land.
The Supreme Court observed that the entire acquisition proceedings and the benefits, which were proposed by the State Government to Anil Agarwal Foundation for setting up Vedanta University were vitiated by favourism and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has explained the scope of Section 11A of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 17 — Interim measures — Termination of lease: Interim direction by arbitrator to
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A and 31 — Expropriation of private property by State — Compensation — Entitlement: State
Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court
Army Act, 1950 — Ss. 125, 126, 69, 3(ii) and 70 — Criminal trial — Concurrent jurisdiction of court martial
Supreme Court: In a case where the Development Plan was finalized in the year 2002, but the same was never implemented nor
Supreme Court of India: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., while deciding an appeal of the landowner, noted
Supreme Court: In a case where the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was dispensed with despite there
Kerala High Court: P.B. Suresh Kumar, J. while allowing a land acquisition appeal, set aside the impugned award and restored the Collector’s