| 1 |
Supreme Court of India |
(2000) 3 SCC 607 |
@Dilip Versus Mohd. Azizul Haq And Another (Civil) (Rent Control) |
March 14, 2000 |
Argued for Respondent No.2 ... (Your content here) |
| 2 |
Supreme Court of India |
(2004) 10 SCC 551
|
Raj Kumar Versus State of Haryana And Others
(Civil)
(Evacuee Property) |
April 6, 2004 |
Argued for the Appellant (Raj Kumar)
Legal Formulation
The applicant argued that the Appellant is entitled to be allotted the evacuee
property based on Section 20 & 33 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act.
Principle of Law:
Accepting the Argument of the Applicant, this Hon’ble Court held in favour of the
appellant by affirming that Appellant is entitled to be allotted the evacuee
property based on Section 20 & 33 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act. |
| 3 |
Supreme Court of India |
(2005) 3 SCC 16
|
Sushanta Tagore And Others Versus Union of India And Others
(Constitution)
(Environment)
(Town & Country Planning)
University |
March 3, 2005 |
Argued for Respondent No.9 and assisted for Respondent No.10 (Bengal Ambuja Housing
Complex Ltd. & Bengal Ambuja Cement Housing Development Ltd.)
Legal Formulation
The applicant argued that the State has an exclusive legislative competence as
regards town planning, the Parliamentary Act cannot interdict in the areas covered
by the State Act and State has allowed the construction activity under challenge in
the PIL.
Principle of Law:
This Hon’ble Court allowed the continuation of construction activities in the
University Complex but directed the SSDA to keep in mind the statutory provisions
and observations made. |
