Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on possession of co-owned property.
The India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), a statutory institution established to create an independent and autonomous regime for institutional arbitration in India
Bombay High Court observed that it is the farmer’s legal right to get compensation and for a person who is vested with a legal right, the demand for justice goes hand in hand.
In the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Union must exercise its powers within the boundaries created by the Constitution. NCTD, having a sui generis federal model, must be allowed to function in the domain charted for it by the Constitution. The Union and NCTD share a unique federal relationship. It does not mean that NCTD is subsumed in the unit of the Union merely because it is not a “State”.
Supreme Court said that NCTD like other states also represents the representative form of government, the involvement of Union of India in the administration of NCTD is limited by Constitution provisions and any further expansion will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of governance.
The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would not be applicable to the land which had lost its character as an agricultural land and was declared an urbanized land in view of the notifications passed by the Delhi Development Authority and Ministry of Urban Development.
Bombay High Court: In a unique case where the officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014
Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. dismissed a second appeal which was filed under section 100 of the Civil
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Gaurang Kanth, JJ. dismissed the writ petition as it was filed after
African Court on Human and People’s Rights (‘AFCHPR’): While deciding the instant matter concerning the eviction of a Kenyan indigenous minority ethnic
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and J M Khazi, JJ. dismissed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment
Supreme Court: In a case where the Court was posed with the question as to whether determination of market value subsequent to
Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. allowed an appeal filed by the defendants setting aside the judgment and decree by the
Jharkhand High Court: Expressing that the due execution of a Will is to be proved as per the provisions of law as
Karnataka High Court: S. R Krishna Kumar J. allowed the petition and quashed the sale deed dated 23-08-2006. The present petition was
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., allowed a petition which was filed mainly seeking a writ, order or direction directing the
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., while addressing a significant and interesting question of law expressed
Patna High Court: Prabhat Kumar Jha, J., allowed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the entire proceeding of land acquisition and
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., discusses the decision of trial Court and first Appellate Court with regard to alienation of the
Karnataka High Court: M.I. Arun, J. allowed the writ petition and declared the show cause notice or any subsequent proceeding as null