Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Maharashtra slum areas (improvement, clearance and redevelopment) act, 1971

JYOTI BUILDERS versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.

The Court held that no writ of mandamus should be issued to direct acquisition under Section 14 because acquisition powers are subject to the landowner's preferential right to redevelop (and Respondent No.4 had validly submitted a proposal after the injunction preventing schemes on reserved open spaces lifted); the appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for the final sale building provided it hands over the Dark Green portion of 2700 sq. mts. reserved as Recreational Ground, and the appellant has been fully compensated by the grant of adequate area/FSI for sale; further, the Subj…

Source excerpt

  • Section 14 slum act
  • Mandamus to state government to acquire property
  • Preferential right of owner to redevelop
  • Occupation certificate for final sale building
  • Recreational ground (rg)
  • Slum rehabilitation scheme
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER versus RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that levy of development charges/fees is permissible under Section 15(2-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and is settled by the decision in Malti Kaul; however orders of the State under Section 41 cannot authorize levies beyond those enumerated in Section 15(2-A), and therefore demand notices/levies for inspection/supervision fee, sub-division charges, stacking charges, impact fee and similar charges were unlawful and must be set aside; the High Court's decision in Rekha Rani quashing development charges was set aside to the extent it invalidated d…

Source excerpt

  • Article 265
  • Development charges
  • Section 15(2-a) u.p. act, 1973
  • Section 41 u.p. act, 1973
  • Refund with interest
Read case analysis
Contempt

HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD versus RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA)

The Court modified the previously suggested 'Second Option' and directed that NOIDA may resume and sell the concerned plots by e-bid/auction with a guaranteed base price of Rs.1,05,000 per sq. metre; petitioners who opt for resale are entitled to refund of amounts paid towards premium (subject to adjustment for any shortfall relative to Rs.1,05,000 per sq. metre), proportionate refund of one-time lease rent for the remainder period (without interest), and interest at 7% p.a. on amounts deposited towards premium calculated up to 30.04.2021; refund of stamp duty is left to the State Government;…

Source excerpt

  • Lease allotment
  • Resumption and auction
  • Refund of deposits
  • Interest on deposits
  • Stamp duty
  • Public interest
Read case analysis
Urban planning

MIG CRICKET CLUB versus ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

The notification dated 24th April 1992 was a proper sanction of the development plan under Section 31(1); prior notifications and modifications were permissible within the statutory scheme. The High Court erred by treating the 1992 notification as a modification under Section 37(2) and quashing it. Judicial review does not permit interference unless the decision is arbitrary, and no arbitrariness was found.

Source excerpt

  • Development plan modification
  • Sanction of development plan
  • Judicial review
  • Legal fiction
Read case analysis
Administrative law

NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION versus NOIDA & ORS.

Disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.4 are not permissible under Rule 6(b), All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, as they are time-barred post-retirement. Allegations of misconduct, including illegal contract awards and unauthorized land conversion, require investigation. CBI is directed to conduct preliminary enquiry and, if warranted, pursue prosecution under relevant laws.

Source excerpt

  • Public trust doctrine
  • Rule of law
  • Misconduct by public servant
  • Limitation in criminal prosecution
  • Disciplinary proceedings against retired ias officers
  • Land use and conversion
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

SHANTI SPORTS CLUB & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

A file noting or ministerial note does not amount to a Government decision under s.48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Withdrawal from acquisition can only be effected by a notification in the Official Gazette, duly authenticated under Articles 77 or 166 of the Constitution. The Government's refusal to de-notify the land was not discriminatory, as the appellants failed to show identical circumstances with other released lands. Transfers and construction subsequent to acquisition were void; equity cannot override statutory prohibitions against transfer and unauthorized construction cannot be pr…

Source excerpt

  • Withdrawal from acquisition
  • Validity of ministerial notings
  • Discrimination under article 14
  • Unauthorized constructions
  • Transfer after acquisition
  • Notification requirement
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Legislature lacks competence to extend time granted by the Supreme Court through enactment or notification, as it would usurp judicial functions. Pending determination of the validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and related notifications, persons/traders cannot claim any benefit of such notifications. Sealing and stoppage of misuser must proceed as per prior directions except permitted reliefs for small shops and subject to undertakings filed before Monitoring Committee.

Source excerpt

  • Misuse of residential premises
  • Commercial activity regulation
  • Constitutionality of delhi laws (special provisions) act, 2006
  • Municipal sealing orders
  • Delhi development authority master plan modification
Read case analysis
Administrative law

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Under Section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government has the discretion to make minor modifications or impose conditions when sanctioning proposed amendments to Development Control Rules; such power is legislative, and neither a hearing nor natural justice principles are required unless the statute so provides. Modifications are valid unless proved arbitrary or unreasonable.

Source excerpt

  • Delegated legislation
  • Development control rules
  • Promissory estoppel
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The order dated November 20, 1997 is clear and has been correctly understood by all concerned. It authorises removal of all hoardings on road-sides which are hazardous and disturb safe traffic movement. There is no ambiguity and no further notice is required beyond what has already been given through public and individual notices.

Source excerpt

  • Removal of roadside hoardings
  • Traffic safety
  • Implementation of supreme court orders
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.