Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Tay Yong Kwang J: 1. This case concerns the judicial review of the Singapore Land Authority's ("the SLA") assessment of the differential premium ("DP") payable for the lifting of title restrictions for two particular plots of land. The applicant alleges that the assessment of the DP was done without reference to the Development Charge Table of Rates ("the DC Table") published by the Urban Redevelopment Authority ("the URA"). The applicant thus seeks a quashing order against the assessed DP and a mandatory order to direct the SLA to assess the DP in accordance with the DC Table. The Attorney- General, a non-party to the action, also made submissions during the hearing before me. The facts leading to the application 2. The applicant is a company in the business of property development. It is currently the lessee of adjoining plots of land identified as Lot Nos 1338M TS 17 ("Lot 1338M") and 2818V TS 17 ("Lot 2818V") (collectively referred to as "the Land"). 3. The applicant acquired Lots ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30621 OF2011JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS VERSUS LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS WITH PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.31735 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.35000 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4831 OF2012SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2839 OF2012SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5860 OF2012SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5859 OF2012SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30841 OF2012SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8327 OF20141 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6915 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.16710-16711 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.33163 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.23344 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.23339-23340 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.21343 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4562-4564 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25191 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.4880 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4878-4879 OF2017S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005. 3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005. 3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.231 OF2010Shakti Vahini Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and others Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher and thinker, Simone Weil, has said:- Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense consists in the ability to choose. When the ability to choose is crushed in the name of class honour and the persons physical frame is treated with absolute indignity, a chilling effect dominates over the brains and bones of the society at large. The question that poignantly emanates for consideration is whether the elders of the family or clan can ever be allowed to proclaim a verdict guided by some notion of passion and eliminate the 2 life of the young who have exercised their choice to get married against the wishes of their elders or contrary to the customary practice of the clan. The answer h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.7208/2011 Reserved on:5. h December, 2012 Date of decision:11. h January, 2013 % SHRIKANT SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. T. B. Saahila Lamba and Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Chibber, Adv. for R-1 to 4. Mr. S.S. Pandey, Adv. for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J.1. Thomas Jefferson said that Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Tyranny points towards arbitrariness. The instant case raises this issue with full force.2. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 22nd of September 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting O.A.No.161/2011. By this petition, the petitioner had challenged the legality of the action of the respondents in considering...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~J- * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:24. 04.2017 + RC.REV. 326/2016 and CM No.23852/2016 RAM KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.A.K. Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta & Ms.Rimpy Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner versus MITTER SAIN GUPTA AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Amit Gupta & Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the DRC Act) seeking to impugn the order dated 03.03.2016 by which the application filed by the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend was dismissed. An eviction order was passed in favour of the respondents/landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.2. The respondents/landlords filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stating that the premises comprising one room and bathroom on the first floor and one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. - 315 U.S. 289 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 315 U.S. 289 (1942) United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation No. 8 Argued December 9, 1941 Decided February 16, 1942 * 315 U.S. 289 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Contracts made in the emergency of war between the Fleet Corporation and a shipbuilding company, for the construction of ships for the United States, provided that the price to be paid the builder should include the actual cost of the ships and two elements of profit, (1) a fixed amount calculated on an agreed Page 315 U. S. 290 estimate of cost and (2) a "bonus for savings," of one-half the amount by which the actual cost turned out lower than the estimate; but no obligation of the builder to make special effort to effect such savings by increasing its efficiency was expressed in the contracts. Held: (1) There is no ground to imply such an o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.338 OF2006Sanjay Gupta and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The 10th of April, 2006, the last day of the India Brand Consumer Show organized by Mrinal Events and Expositions at Victoria Park, Meerut, witnessed the dawn of the day with hope, aspiration, pleasure and festivity at the Victoria Park, Meerut, but, as ill-fortune (man made) would have it, as the evening set in, it became the mute spectator to a devastating fire inside the covered premises of the brand show area which extinguished the life spark of sixty-four persons and left more than hundreds as injured; and with the clock ticking, the day turned to be a silent observer of profused flow of human tears, listener of writhing pain and cry, and eventually, marking itself as a dark day of disaster in human history. Some, who were fortunate to escape death, sustained serious inju...
Tag this Judgment!