(1)
M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD. ... Vs.
S. JOEL ........Respondent D.D
04/02/2019
Facts:On 15 June 2004, MoEF issued guidelines regulating the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.On 7 March 2008, the Government of Tamil Nadu approved the diversion of forest land for the construction of an intake well for drinking water purposes.The National Green Tribunal received a complaint alleging the misuse of water for industrial purposes instead of the approved drinking wate...
(2)
FEDERATION HAJ PTOS OF INDIA ... Vs.
UNION OF INDIA ........Respondent D.D
04/02/2019
FACTS:The petitioners, representing PTOs/HGOs, challenged certain eligibility conditions and provisions in the Haj Policy 2019-2023.The Government of India, following a detailed process and consultation, formulated the Haj Policy, taking into account suggestions from stakeholders.ISSUES:Dispute over eligibility conditions and provisions in the Haj Policy.Grievances raised by PTOs/HGOs regarding th...
(3)
G. RATNA RAJ (D) BY LRS. ... Vs.
SRI MUTHUKUMARASAMY PERMANENT FUND LTD. AND ANOTHER ........Respondent D.D
01/02/2019
Facts:G. Ratna Raj, the original appellant (now represented by legal representatives), filed a civil suit for redemption of mortgage and permanent injunction against Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd. (Respondent No.1) and others.Defendants appeared initially, issues were framed, and plaintiff's evidence was recorded.Defendants did not appear later, and the court proceeded ex parte again...
(4)
ASHARFI DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ... Vs.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
01/02/2019
Facts:The appellant (Asharfi Devi) was the owner of certain lands subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.Ceilings proceedings declared some lands in excess of ceiling limits as surplus, and the State claimed to have taken possession in 1982.The appellant filed a writ petition in 2002, claiming that the Ceiling Act's repeal in 1999 rendered the...
(5)
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ... Vs.
SANJIV CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
01/02/2019
Facts: The Chairman of the Tribunal, acting singly, stayed proceedings before a two-member Bench and rendered interim orders passed by that Bench inoperative, utilizing powers under Sections 5, 24, and 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.Issues:Whether the Chairman, sitting singly, possesses the authority to nullify orders passed by a larger Bench?What is the relevance of the Preamble of ...
(6)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Vs.
SHANKAR GANAPATI RAHATOL ........Respondent D.D
31/01/2019
Facts:A complaint was lodged on 01.09.1998, stating an attack on the complainant on 29.08.1998 by the respondents and others.The complainant alleged injuries and hospitalization, leading to the filing of FIR No. 1165/1998.After the trial, all accused were acquitted on 06.09.2005.Issues:The State of Maharashtra sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC, which was rejected by the High Cour...
(7)
SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LRS ... Vs.
ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
31/01/2019
Facts:The dispute originated in the Court of Superintendent of land records and subsequently progressed through appellate stages, culminating in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.Issues:The primary issue revolves around the entries made in the revenue records concerning the disputed land.Held:The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that mutation of land ...
(8)
SHRI RAJENDRA LALITKUMAR AGRAWAL ... Vs.
SMT. RATNA ASHOK MURANJAN AND ANOTHER ........Respondent D.D
31/01/2019
Facts: The appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents for specific performance of the contract based on an agreement dated 08.08.1984. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the first Appellate Court overturned the decision. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, stating it lacked substantial questions of law.Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff...
(9)
N. SANKARANARAYANAN ... Vs.
THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
31/01/2019
Facts:The appellant, N. Sankaranarayanan, and respondent No. 2 are members of a family with disputes over family properties.An earlier memorandum of understanding in 1998 aimed to resolve disputes, but conflicts persisted.The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226, challenging the activities of respondent No. 2 on family land.Issues:Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appro...