Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)
Padmausundara Rao (Dead) &Ors.; vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 13 March, 2002 cites

Ram Chand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 September, 1993

In Ram Chand and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1994 (1) SCC 44), it was held by this Court that though no period was prescribed, action within a reasonable time was warranted. The said case related to a dispute which arose before prescription of specific periods. After the quashing of declaration, the same became non-est and was effaced. It is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no bar on issuing a fresh declaration after following the due procedure. It is, however, contended that in case a fresh notification is to be issued, the market value has to be determined on the basis of the fresh Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and it may be a costly affair for the State. Even if it is so, the interest of the person whose land is sought to be acquired, cannot be lost sight of. He is to be compensated for acquisition of his land. If the acquisition sought to be made is done in an illogical, illegal or irregular manner, he cannot be made to suffer on that count.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 158 - N P Singh - Full Document

M/S.Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd vs P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd on 9 May, 2000

While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. [See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. vs. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. (2000 (5) SCC 515)]. `The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 144 - Full Document
1   2 Next