Skip to content

Judgments

126 judgments match your search. Search by party name, citation (e.g. LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 5), case number, judge or words in the judgment, or pick a date of decision.

Clear

LOK 2019 (4) SC 21 · Supreme Court of India

Pawan Kumar v. Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs. And Ors.

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 454 : JT 2019 (4) SC 14 : 2019 KLT (Online) 3003 : 2019 (5) Scale 672 : (2019) 4 SCC 367 : 2019 (263) Taxman 354 : 2019 KHC 3050

SubjectBenami Transactions, Civil Procedure
JudgesJustice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra
ActsBenami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (Section 4; Section 4(3)(b)); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VII Rule 11)

The appellant sued for a declaration that he owned a shop purchased in the name of his father, the first defendant, pleading that he had funded the purchase himself and that his father had executed a writing in 2002 acknowledging his ownership; he also sought cancellation of a 2006 sale deed executed by the father in favour of the second defendant. Nine years after filing his written statement, the second defendant applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The trial court rejected the plaint and the High Court affirmed, holding that the suit was clearly hit by Section 4.

LOK 2018 (3) SC 125 · Supreme Court of India

Rameshwar v. State of Haryana

Equivalent citations: JT 2018 (3) SC 319 : 2018 (4) Scale 270 : (2018) 6 SCC 215 : 2018 KHC 6182

SubjectConstitutional Law, Land Acquisition
JudgesJustice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9, 18 and 48); Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Section 24); Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975; National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (Section 40); Constitution of India (Articles 14, 226 and 300-A)

Dropping a land acquisition on the strength of licence applications by builders who bought after the Section 4 notification is fraud on power; the Supreme Court set aside the decisions, declared a deemed award as on 26.08.2007 and directed restitution of the gains of builders and middlemen.

LOK 2007 (4) SC 1011 · Supreme Court of India

Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Equivalent citations: 2007 (2) KLT 488 (SC) : 2007 (6) SCC 528 : ILR 2008 (1) Ker. 73 : 2007 (2) Crimes 435 (Sc) : 2007 (2) AD(SC) 533 Cri : 2007 (2) AD(Cr) 533 : 2007 AIR(SCW) 2425 : 2007 (1) ALD(Cri) 990 : 2007 ALL MR (CRI) 1775 : 2007 (3) ALT(Cri) 13 (SC) : 2007 (3) BCR 28 : 2007 (2) BCR 414 (Cri) : 2007 CriLJ 2417,JT 2007 (6) SC 204 : 2008 (1) MAH.L.J 22 : 2007 (2) MAH.L.J 1170 (Cri) : 2007 (5) Scale 452 : 2007 (3) SCC(Cr) 209 : 2007 (3) Supreme 379

Subject–
JudgesJustice S.B. Sinha, Justice Dalveer Bhandari
ActsConstitution of India (Article 21)

LOK 2015 (12) SC 22 · Supreme Court of India

Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan

Subject–
JudgesJustice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
ActsIndian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 307 and 326); Indian Explosive Substances Act 1908 (Sections 5 and 6); Draft Constitution (Article 60); Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (Section 6); Constitution of India (Articles 13, 21, 32, 53, 72, 72(1)(a), 73, 73(1)(a), 74(1), 131, 161, 162, 246(2), 247, 251, 252, 256, 258A, 277, 285, 355 and 369)

LOK 2019 (4) SC 25 · Supreme Court of India

Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure LTD. v. Govindan Raghavan

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 458 : AIR 2019 SC 1779 : 2019 (2) KHC (SN) 31 : 2019 (2) KLJ 572 : 2019 KLT (Online) 3004 : 2019 (5) Scale 680 : (2019) 5 SCC 725

SubjectConsumer Protection, Contract, Real Estate
JudgesJustice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra
ActsConsumer Protection Act, 1986 (Section 2(1)(o); Section 2(1)(r); Section 23); Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (Rule 15)

The builder was to apply for the occupancy certificate within 39 months of excavation, plus a 6-month grace period, but obtained it only on 23.07.2018, almost three years late. The flat purchaser, who had paid about Rs. 4.48 crore and serviced a bank loan in the meantime, filed a consumer complaint in January 2017 seeking a refund. The National Commission ordered a refund with interest at 10.7% simple per annum under Rule 15 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017, excluding the period of an interim stay obtained by the purchaser. The builder relied on Clauses 11.5 and 20 of the Agreement, which required a 90-day termination notice after a further 12-month wait and capped interest at 9% or 6%.