//
archives

Apex

This tag is associated with 7 posts

Bar Council Elections for the post of Chairmen – Single judge declared the appellant as winning candidate – D.B. reversed – Apex court order for fresh elections by setting aside the orders of DB bench as the rules not framed properly = Yogendra Singh Tomar … Appellant Versus Bar Council for Uttarakhand and others …Respondents= Published in /Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41099

Bar Council Elections for the post of Chairmen – Single judge declared the appellant as winning candidate – D.B. reversed – Apex court order for fresh elections by setting aside the orders of DB bench as the rules not framed properly  =  Thereafter, the  learned  single  Judge  allowed  the  writ  petition  by    holding that … Continue reading

Industrial dispute – Dismissed some workers as they disobeyed the management orders – workmen contended it’s a additional work with out any additional wages – Tribunal find misconduct as proved – but set aside the dismissal order as it is not in proportionate of offence committed and directed to reinstate with 50% back wages – High court confirmed the same and dismissed the management writ – Apex court held – Tribunal finding about prove of misconduct is also wrong as the protest of worker is valid one as per law as it is a additional work with out additional wages – scope of or .41, rule 22 c.p.c. applied a winning party can even though there was no counter appeal challenge the negative findings against him – Since workers not filed any appeal on back wages final relief – confirmed the orders of lower courts and dismissed the civil appeal filed by management = Management of Sundaram Industries Ltd. …Appellant Versus Sundaram Industries Employees Union …Respondent = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41089

Industrial dispute – Dismissed some workers as they disobeyed the management orders – workmen contended it’s a additional work with out any additional wages – Tribunal find misconduct as proved – but set aside the dismissal order as it is not in proportionate of offence committed and directed to reinstate with 50% back wages – … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act – enhancement of Market value – by applying principle of 12% increase per year on the market value as the 12% per annum increase which courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.” – Apex court enhanced the compensation = Kashmir Singh …Appellant(s) Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondent(s) = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41088

Land Acquisition Act – enhancement of Market value – by applying principle of 12% increase per year  on the market value as the  12%  per  annum increase  which  courts  have  often  found  to  be  adequate  in compensation matters hardly does justice  to  those  land  owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken  of the fact that … Continue reading

Arbitration and conciliation Act – Disputes between the parties – whether to send it for expert opinion or to arbitrator – High Court instead of deciding issue whether there is any arbitration clause or not-open the issue on merits of disputes – billing – date of billing – billing disputes etc., and appointed arbitrator – Apex court set aside the orders of high court to that extent of opening of issues on merits as it should be decided by the Arbitrator but not by the court = Arasmeta Captive Power Company Private Limited and another … Appellants Versus Lafarge India Private Limited …Respondent = published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41075

Arbitration and conciliation Act – Disputes between the parties whether to send it for expert opinion or to arbitrator – High Court instead of deciding issue whether there is any arbitration clause or not-open the issue on merits of disputes – billing – date of billing – billing disputes etc., and appointed arbitrator – Apex court set aside the … Continue reading

Sec.466 Company Act – permission of company court for eviction suit against a winding up company from a leased premises – earlier orders when not on merit – a subsequent order granting permission for filing eviction suit – Reversed by D.B. bench on the point of resjudicate – Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the D.B. bench holding that there is no Res-judicata = Erach Boman Khavar … Appellant Versus Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another …Respondents = Published in / Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41074

Sec.466 Company Act – permission of company court for eviction suit against a     winding up company from a leased premises – earlier orders when not on merit – a subsequent order granting permission for filing eviction suit – Reversed by D.B. bench on the point of resjudicate – Apex court allowed the appeal … Continue reading

Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) – Development Act – Declarations in respect of “common areas and facilities” – the owners cannot claim any undivided interest over those facilities except the right of user – they cannot claim an undivided interest or right of management over them.- agreements executed between the colonizer and the DTCP vis-à-vis the various provisions of the Apartment Act, the statutory declaration made by the colonizer and the Sale Deeds executed between the parties – Apex court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed before the High Court. The appeal is, therefore allowed. = DLF Limited ….. Appellant Versus Manmohan Lowe and others …..Respondents =published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41058

Haryana Apartment  Ownership  Act,1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) –  Development Act – Declarations in respect of “common areas and  facilities” – the owners cannot claim any  undivided interest over those facilities except  the  right  of  user – they  cannot claim an undivided interest or right of management over them.- agreements executed between the colonizer and the DTCP  vis-à-vis the  various  provisions … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30 & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 arises – as they applied with in 6 weeks – reference was not barred by limitation = MADAN & ANR. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT (S) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41051

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30  & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order  of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,805 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com