Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 335 (4.81 seconds)
Documents citing Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 1 July, 1985

Bhim Singh vs . Uoi on 29 March, 2007

Bhim Singh vs. UOI references pertaining to award no. 3/97-98 village Aali, my attention was drawn to judgment passed by the Hon'ble High court in RFA No. 254/78 entitled UOI Vs. Bharat Singh & Anr. wherein land notified u/s 4 on 06.4.64 in village Molarband was assessed @ Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. Reference was therein made to the fact that village Molarband had same potentiality as the land in village Badarpur and it was also observed that village Molarband is adjacent to village Aali and Badarpur. It was further observed that the same rate had been awarded for the land notified u/s 4 on 06.4.64 in village Badarpur. The location and potentiality of village Aali as such appears to be more comparable to village Jaitpur and Badarpur than village Jasola, Tuglakabad, Tehkhand wherein development had commenced. Even in reference proceedings pertaining to award no 9/94-95 it was noticed that no substantial development had taken place in village Aali as the land had been largely acquired in village Ali and Jaitpur for construction of ash pond. Thus, no substantial development appears to have commenced in the village. Further the land could only be used for agricultural purposes. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that it may not be prudent to assess the value of land comparing it with village Jasola, Bahapur and Tuglakabad. As such Ex. P4, P5 and P6 are not relevant to assess the value of land. The authorities relied by the petitioner as such are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Divya W/O. Deepak Parkhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 September, 2019

It is thus for the Trial Court to pass an appropriate orders in terms of those directions given by the Supreme Court in case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and others [in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.310 of 2005] by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 436-A and so also 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say that the applicants are at liberty to file such an application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall decide the said application, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:54 ::: 5 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt period of 15 days.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Deepak S/O. Kedu Parkhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 September, 2019

It is thus for the Trial Court to pass an appropriate orders in terms of those directions given by the Supreme Court in case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and others [in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.310 of 2005] by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 436-A and so also 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say that the applicants are at liberty to file such an application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall decide the said application, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a ::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2019 23:00:49 ::: 5 925-BA.1617-18 & Anr.odt period of 15 days.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

S.Vasudeva Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 March, 1993

It can be urged that Section 26(1) suffers from the same vice which was pointed out in respect of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of Act, in the aforesaid case of bhim Singhji v. Union of India (supra) by this Court. But neither in the aforesaid case nor in this case this court was or is concerned with Section 26 and as such, according to me, it is not necessary to express any opinion in respect of Section 26 of the Act, while considering the issue involved in the present appeals. ORDER
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 85 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Bennett Coleman And Co. Ltd. And Others on 10 September, 1987

They so stated in brief order and observe that fuller reasons would follow It appears, however, from the judgment in paragraph 4 of the judgment in Maharao Sahib Shri. Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, , that Chandrachud C. J. and Bhagwati J., then concurred with the judgment delivered by Krishna Iyer J. and felt that the need for fuller reasons was obviated. Krishna Iyer J., in the course of his judgment noted that " the question of basic structure being breached could not arise when the vires of an ordinary legislation were being examined as distinguished from the vires of a constitutional amendment. Every branch of equality did not spell disaster as a lethal violation of he basic structure. What was a betrayal of the basic feature was into a mere violation of article 4 but a shocking unconscionable or unscrupulous travesty of the quintessence of equal justice. If a legislation dos go that far, it shakes the democratic foundation and must suffer the death penalty". Without amplifying Krishna Iyer J., however, struck down the provisions of section 27 of the Ceiling Act. A. P. Sen J. also struck down section 27 of the ceiling Act and he did so because there was no justification for freezing of transactions by way of sal mortgage or lease of vacant land for the stated period even though it fell within the ceiling limits. He held that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed to a citizen under article 19(1)(f) carried with it the right not to hold any property.
Bombay High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 3 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Special Secretary, Land And Land And ... vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 12 April, 1988

In the case of Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, the question of constitutional validity of hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act this Act was raised. It was a five-Judge Bench, the majority of Judges, i.e., Chandrachud, C.J., P. N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, JJ. held that the entire Act was valid save and except Section 27(1) in so far as it imposed a restriction on transfer of any urban or urbanisable land with a building or of a portion of such building which was within the ceiling area. Chandrachud, C.J. delivered a judgment for himself and on behalf of Bhagwati, J. Krishna Iyer, J. agreed with the learned Chief Justice regarding the constitutional validity and Section 27 but delivered a separate judgment. Tulzapurkar, J. and Sen, J. delivered the minority judgment holding that the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 23 and the opening words subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) in Section 23(4) of the said Act are ultra vires of the Parliament. Section 27, being severable, was also declared to be ultra vires. The remaining provisions of the said Act. including Sub-section (4) of Section 23 were declared as valid.
Calcutta High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dda vs Smt. Bishan Devi And Ors. on 2 July, 2012

7. Learned counsel for the DDA argued that the premise on which the impugned judgment in the LPA was based, was the prevailing legal understanding that in the event of a legal notice, in line with Section 55 was issued, calling upon the authorities to acquire lands covered by a Master Plan, it was incumbent upon them to acquire the lands within six months, failing which the power of acquisition could not be exercised. Learned counsel emphasized that this understanding or reasoning was based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 55 of the Development Act. The error which crept in through the decision in Scindia Potteries (supra) was repeated in Sahib Singh (supra) and merely followed in the impugned judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next