LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

2015 Amendment Won't Apply To Section 34 Applications Filed Prior To It

The name of the case was Ratnam Sudesh Iyer v Jackie Kakubhai Shroff. The decision was given by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh. In this case, the court affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge and Division Bench to the extent it interfered with the award and set aside the award. It also upheld that the arbitrator's conclusions are not in accordance with the fundamental policy of Indian Law and thus can be set aside as per the pre-2015 interpretation of S.34 of the Act.

What do you think about this case?

Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not Deficiency Of Service

The name of the case was Nandlal Lohariya v.Jagdish Chand Purohit. The decision in this case was given by the bench consisting Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna. The Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition. It was held by the Court that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be deficient in service on his/her part. In another observation, it was held that such a complaint may lie only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate.

What do you think about this case?

SC: Compensation Cannot Be Restricted To Value Of Illegally Mined Mineral

The name of the case was Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan. The decision in this case was given by a three judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai. According to the Court, it is the polluter who is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The compensation should include the cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services.

What do you think about this case?

SC Answers Whether 2 Year Period Under Section 11A Of Land Acquisition Act 1984 Applies Even After Repeal

The name of the case was Executive Engineer v. Mahesh. The case was decided by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna. The Court gave its observation that practical absurdities and anomalies could arise if the two year period is applied to awards made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

What do you think about this case?
 

"Loved reading this piece by Brinda Kundu?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  83  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query