Framing of regulations is not sine qua non for land being dealt with by the Corporation

[Case Brief] Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited cs Pitabasa Mishra & Others

Case Name Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs Pitabasa Mishra & Others  Case Number Civil Appeal No. 2269 OF 2018 Court Supreme Court of India  Bench Justice L. Nageswara Rao  and Justice SA Bobde  Author of the judgment…

Continue Reading

Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights V/s Union of India (1998)

[sociallocker][/sociallocker]

CaseNaga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 431
CourtBefore Supreme Court of India
BenchHon'ble Judges/Coram: J.S. Verma, C.J., M.M. Punchhi, S.C. Agrawal, Dr. A.S. Anand and S.P. Bharucha, JJ.
Author of the judgementJustice S.C. Agrawal
Decided On27th November, 1997
Author of the briefOjaswa Pathak

In the present case the validity of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 and Assam Disturbed Areas Act 1955 were challenged in view of the alleged violations of human rights by armed forces personnel deployed in the “disturbed areas”.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v Late Governor of Delhi and others(1974): When the legislature has spoken, the judges cannot afford to be wiser.

Case Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Late Governor of Delhi and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1868
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchChief Justice AN Ray, Justice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew
Author of the judgementJustice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew
Decided On6 August, 1974
Advocate for the appellantJ. K. Jain and T. V. S. Narasimhachari
Advocate for the respondent L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad, and R.N. Sachthey
AbstractIn the present case, the appellant's land was taken without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Both the single judge and the division bench of the High Court ruled in the favor of the appellant and directed the Delhi Administration to provide hearing to the appellant. Under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is necessary for the Land Collector to hear the objector and give recommendations. However, this recommendations are not binding on the government. In the present case, the collector did not hear the objector and the hearing was given to the administration directly. The division bench held that there was no need to take into consideration the recommendation of the collector and thus there is no infringement of section 5A of the Act. The Supreme Court did not agree to this and held that the provisions of the statute are mandatory to be observed.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsNotification, Land Acquisition Act, Religious Trust, Land Collector, Natural Justice, Legislature.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Central Coalfields Limited & Anr V. SLL-SML(Joint venture Consortium) & Ors(2016): The party issuing the tender has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the tender.

Case Central Coalfields Limited and Another V. SLL-SML(Joint venture Consortium) and Others.
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchJustice Madan B. Lokur, Justice R.K. Agarwal
Author of the JudgementJustice Madan B Lokur.
Decided onAugust 17, 2016.
AbstractIn the present case, the appellants invited tenders and prescribed that the bank guarantee should be given in the specified format. The respondent SLL-SML had not adhered to the format specified and thus their bid was rejected. It was contended by the respondent SLL-SML that the format was ambiguous and vague. The division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court of India. According to the Supreme Court if the employer specifies a certain format then the submission should be made in that format only and no other format should be adhered to.
Author of briefAditya Gor
KeywordsBank Guarantee, Professional Responsibility, Tender, Joint Venture, Digital Signature Certificate.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana(1979): Non-compliance with section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, would not render the order or notification void.

Case Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1979 SC 1149)
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India.
BenchJustice Jaswant Singh, Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali and Justice P. S. Kailasam.
Author of the judgmentJustice Jaswant Singh
Date of the Judgment4/10/1978
Advocates for the appellantsB. Sen, A.K. Sen, J.C. Bhatt, F.S. Nariman, A.B. Diwan, I.N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar.
Advocates for the respondentD. Mukherjee, E.C. Agarwala and R.N. Sachthey.
Relevant Act/SectionsEssential Commodities Act 1955 – Section 3(6).
Author of the BriefHarshil Patel, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsIron and Steel Control Order, Indian Penal Code, Maximum selling price, Constitution of India, Essential Commodities Act, Parliament,

(more…)

Continue Reading

Shivashakti Sugars Limited v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited & Ors(2017): It is the duty of the court to have economic analysis of its decision.

CaseShivashakti Sugars Limited v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited & Ors.
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchA.K.Sikri, A.M.Sapre, JJ.
Author of the judgementA.K.Sikri, J.
Decided on09.05.2017
AbstractThis is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to consider the economic impact and analysis of its decisions before deciding any case. However, such economic analysis cannot supersede the statutory provisions of law.
Author of the briefDarshan Patankar, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsSugarcane (Control) Amendment Act, Sugar Mills,

(more…)

Continue Reading
Close Menu