Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.52 seconds)Section 10 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
State Of U.P vs Hari Ram on 11 March, 2013
21. It is further vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the State that
the earlier law in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 stands
diluted by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment of the case of Bhaskar
Jyoti Sarma (supra) and the said case has been distinguished on facts and
therefore, the mere defects of procedure in Section 10(5) and 10(6) cannot come to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 19-05-2025
17:24:11
12
the rescue of the erstwhile land owners whose land stood vested in the State long
before.
Section 3 in The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
State Of Assam & Ors vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors on 27 November, 2014
20. Looking to these factual aspects, learned counsel for the appellant/State
has vehemently argued that the de-jure possession taken by the State is in itself
valid and secondly, it was vehemently argued by relying on judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (2015) 5
SCC 321 that the land owners after long lapse of time, just to take benefit of
Repeal Act cannot take the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Section
10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Ceiling Act. It is argued that the Repeal Act cannot
become a windfall event for the erstwhile land owners whose land stood vested in
the State under Section 10(3) only because some formalities under Section 10(5) &
10(6) were not completed at the relevant of time when the Ceiling Act was in
existence.
Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 2 November, 1976
36. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of section 10, in our view, means vesting
of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a
person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. This Court
in Maharaj Singh v. State of UP, (1977) 1 SCC 155 : (1977) 1 SCR 1072,
while interpreting section 117(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reform Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of slippery import and has
many meaning and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme
project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning.
Rajendra Kumar vs Kalyan (D) By Lrs on 2 August, 2000
This Court
in Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (Dead) by L.Rs., (2000) 8 SCC 99, held as
follows:--