Citation network
M/S Evershine Monuments Vs. The State of Karnataka
Cites for this judgment
- Karnataka High Court
- Dec 14, 2017
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
AIR2016SC2912Search
-
AIR2017SC904Search
-
AIR2011SC1113Search
-
AIR1984ORISSA180Search
-
(2016) 16 SCC258Search
-
(2017) 6 SCC751Search
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
(2015) 3 SCC206Search
-
(2010) 7 SCC129Search
-
(2011) 3 SCC139Search
-
(2011) 3 SCC1Search
-
(2011) 3 SCC408Search
-
(2014) 3 SCC183Search
-
(2016) 16 SCC254Search
-
(2009) 10 SCC689Search
-
learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Smt. K.M.Chikkathayamma and others v. TheSearch
-
of Delhi Development Authority v. SukhbirSearch
-
of Government (NCT of Delhi) v. ManavSearch
-
R.F. Nariman, J.in DDA v. SukbhirSearch
-
of Aligarh Development Authority v. MeghsinghSearch
-
Karnail Kaur v. StateSearch
-
ble Supreme Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and others v. BangaloreSearch
-
Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. BangaloreSearch
-
Distilleries Ltd., v. StateSearch
-
of Bondu Ramaswamy v. BangaloreSearch
-
underlining by me) d) Recently, in Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and another v. AnasuyaSearch
-
of M.Nagabhushana v. StateSearch
-
Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. BangaloreSearch
-
Next, it is necessary to discuss Smt. K.M. Chikkathayamma and others v. TheSearch
-
s case, which are cited at the Bar by learned counsel for petitioners. In Sri Munibyrappa and another v. StateSearch
-
that Section 24 of 2013 Act applied to an acquisition initiated under the BDA Act. Similarly, in Jayamma and others v. StateSearch
-
as if the said section was - 74 - applicable to an acquisition initiated under the BDA Act. In T.B.R.Boranna and others v. TheSearch
-
the writ petitions by declaring that the acquisition had lapsed. So also, in the case of Smt. Padmavathi and others v. StateSearch
-
Bangalore Development Authority and another v. SmtSearch
-
Properties v. StateSearch
-
petitioners are not applicable having regard to the nature of controversy in this case.36. In Sri Suryaprakash and others v. StateSearch
-
H.A. Balaji v. TheSearch
-
of Pune Municipal Corporation v. HarakchandSearch
-
of Delhi Development Authority v. KushamSearch
-
of M.Nagabhushana v. StateSearch
-
of Delhi Development Authority v. SukhbirSearch
-
of Government (NCT of Delhi) v. ManavSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial