Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals

Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 at page 738

34. The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a civil court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the civil court would stand excluded

 

 

 

Delay in payment of compensation: consequences

(1994) 1 SCC 44

Despite voluntary disclosure of income penalty can be levied

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/10/mak-data-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-of.html

Buyer of a piece of land after section 4 notification does so at his own peril

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/12/kn-aswathnarayana-setty-d-tr-lrs-ors-vs.html

Anticipatory bail not to be given to absconder

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/12/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-pradeep.html


Sent through Android app for RSS Feed reading available by:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.news.rssfeedreader

Co-promisor alone can sue for specific performance

AIR 1937 Nag 186

(2009) 3 SCC 141

Supplementing Order by Counter Affidavit

To defend the impugned order, an authority can rely on reasons stated in the order or those on record and cannot provide additional reasons by filing an affidavit . (2005) 7 SCC 627 HPCL v. Darius Shapur

Unconscionable term in the Agreement regarding rehabilitation with the Government of displaced landowners

The Supreme Court applied BrojoNath Ganguly, .. the High Court was not right in refusing to direct the Corporation and othe rofifical respondents to pay compensation to the appellants at par with other landowners. 2013 (10) SCALE 450 Daulat Sitaram Kodne v. State of Maharashtra

 

 

Direction issued for implementation of COTPA

(2013) 10 SCALE  Health for Millions v. Union of India & Ors,

 

Direction issued to Central Government and State Government to rigorously implement the 2003 Act and 2004 Rules.

Cancellation of Promotion After 11 Years

Kusheshwar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2013) 10 SCALE 227

 

The appellant was not at all in any way at fault. It was time bound promotion which was given to the Appellant. In absence of any fault of the Appellant, the promotion granted by the Respondents cannot be cancelled after 11 years.