(2007) 1 SCC 110
AIR 2007 SC 1087
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Scope of Article 227
a. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope of Article 227 observed in paragraph 15 that "Undoubtedly, the High Court under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority."
b. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 at page 346 para 47, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "… in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceedings, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made." (but see para 49( c) and 66, also but see para 58).
c. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 (Paras 6-21)
Investigation by CBI shall not take place on basis of audit report.
"Investigation by CBI shall not take place on basis of audit report."
Compulsory Registration of Leases Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act
AIR 1997 All 396 (Full Bench), para 9
Gyasi Ram v. Ram Chandra MANU/UP/0090/1978 : AIR 1978 All 376, that the requirement of registration contained in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be circumvented or allowed to be defeated by setting up a case of permanent tenancy on the basis of oral evidence.
Zarif Ahmad v. Satish Kumar, 1982 AWC907
AIR 2000 3523
AIR 1964 SC 358
Invocation of Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition - Colourable Exercise - Part VII Land Acquisition
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480
Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 533
Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 164, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that urgency clause provided in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be lightly invoked, and that there is no justification to invoke urgency in case of proposed development of township in order to do away with the principles of natural justice as embodied in Section 5A of the 1894 Act.
Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 533
Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 164, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that urgency clause provided in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be lightly invoked, and that there is no justification to invoke urgency in case of proposed development of township in order to do away with the principles of natural justice as embodied in Section 5A of the 1894 Act.
Darshan Lal Nagpal v. Government of NCT of Delhi Civil Appeal No. 11169 of 2011 decided on 03.01.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again categorically held that compulsory acquisition of the property belonging to a private individual is a serious matter and has grave repercussions on his Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property without the sanction of law – Article 300A and the legal rights.
Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd v. G.Jayarama Reddy reported in (2011) 10 SCC 608 - Colourable exercise of power for land acquisition for corporates
Devinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 12 October, 2007 Appeal (civil) 4843 of 2007 (reported 2008 SCC)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)