Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Just as an illegal contract cannot be enforced, similarly a compromise or settlement which is not in the interest of the Society cannot be used to nullify the order passed by the competent authority in compliance of the direction passed by the Court.”
“Even if there are certain clauses which the parties may have aided from the tenancy legislation, is no ground to … declare the unambiguous leave and licence agreement to be an agreement of tenancy ignoring preponderance of probability.”
The Gujarat AAR said that the lease deed nowhere suggests that the consideration received by the applicant is related to construction of complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof. Thus, the question of this transaction falling within the ambit of Sl. No. 5(b), Schedule II, does not arise.
It has been alleged that the Ecological concerns have not been taken into consideration while granting lease to certain Salt Plants. NGT will now decide if it has the power to cancel the lease on the grounds that the lease has an adverse impact on the environment.
Supreme Court: In a dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation(CWC) and Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) over 34 acres of land
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after being aggrieved by the order
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan J., Chairperson, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar, JJ,
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 38
Calcutta High Court: Shampa Sarkar, J. decided on a petition which was filed for a direction upon the respondents 7 and 8
“Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given.”
Supreme Court: In the instant appeals, the Market Committees located in Rajasthan raised their grievance over the decision of CESTAT that respective
Supreme Court: While dealing with the scope of Section 12 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, bench of MR Shah*
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 92 Proviso (6) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ* and
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the second appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rajbir Sehrawat, J., allowed the instant second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of P.R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ and Parth Prateem Sahu, J., addressed an issue with regard to the
by Achal Gupta*
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: A Full Bench of Lord Briggs (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Wilson and Lady Arden,
Jharkhand High Court: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner sought