The present case is an appeal before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab. The appellant and the respondents are real brothers and the dispute among them is…
|Case||INDIAN BANK Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,|
|Court||Before the Supreme Court of India|
|Bench||Justice S.C. Agrawal and Justice G.T. Nanavati|
|Author of the judgement||Justice G.T. Nanavati|
|Decided On||5 May, 1998|
|Advocates for the appellant||Sameer Parekh, Ms. Bina Madhavan, P.H. Parekh|
|Advocates for the respondent||D.M. Nargolkar|
|Author of the brief||Aditi Mozika|
|Keywords||Res Sub Judice, Civil Procedure|
|Case Name||Ambika Savaria and Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma and Ors.,|
|Court||Before Supreme Court of India|
|Bench||J. Uday Umesh Lalit|
|Counsel for Petitioner||Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta|
|Counsel for respondent||Mr. Ujjal Banerjee|
|Decided On||August 09, 2016|
|Abstract||In the present case, the matter was concerned with regards to eviction of a person from a premises on grounds of invalid ownership. The Supreme Court in the present case held that the question of ownership of the landlord is not open to tenant.|
|Author of brief||Abhay Tyagi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.|
|Keywords||Tenancy, Ownership, Madhya Pradesh Accomodation Control Act.|
World Sports Group (Mauritius) Ltd vs MSM Satellite(Singapore) Pte., (2014) 11 SCC 639 Decided on: 24 January 2014 Author of the judgement: A K Patnaik Bench: A.K. Patnaik, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla Advocate for the appellant: Mr K.K. Venugopal Advocate for…
Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union Of India & Ors, 1984 AIR 1026 Before the Supreme Court of India Decided on: 23 April 1984. Bench: DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) Author of the judgement: D. A. Desai Advocates for the petitioner: Ms. Nandita Haksar…
This judgement delivered on November 25, 2016, deals with the dominance of Union Legislation over the State Legislation in accordance with the two preconditions being satisfied. The ratio laid down by comparing Article 246 and Article 31B of the Indian Constitution suggests that if the state legislation encroaches the parliamentary legislation then it can be nullified.
UCO Bank & Anr. V. Dipak Debbarma & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 11250 of 2016
Before the Supreme Court of India
Coram: Ranjan Gogoi and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Delivered on: November 25, 2016.
Facts: The UCO bank by the sale notification dated 26.06.2012 under SARFESI Act, 2002, sold the land by auction to the purchaser who is not the member of Schedule Tribe. By the virtue of section 187 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reform Act, 1960, it is mandatory for the bank to sell such property to schedule tribe only.
Procedural History: A writ petition was instituted in the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati high Court who are the respondent in the present appeal. The High Court agreed with the act of 1960 because it is included in the 9th schedule of the constitution and therefore enjoys protection under section 31B of the Constitution and hence prevails over the act of 2002.