ASHOK BHAN, S. B. SINHA
Chairman And M. D. , B. P. L. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
S. P. Gururaja – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-How economic development of a State can be halted by a Public Interest Litigation has received the attention of this Court in some of its decisions. The case at hand adds to the said list.
Backdrop Facts :
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) is a statutory authority constituted under Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. It acquired a vast tract of land inter alia for the purpose of allotment thereof to entrepreneurs who intended to set up industries in the State of Karnataka. The State of Karnataka with a view to accelerate economic development of the State adopted a policy decision of dealing with the applications received from the entrepreneurs through one window system. With a view to achieve the said objective a High Level Committee was constituted. B.P.L. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) with a view to set up industries applied for allotment of 500 acres of land for its three projects. The said application was considered by the High Level Committee wherein a decision was taken to allot 175 acres of land in favour of the Company at Rs. 92/- per sq.m. The Company was held
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors.
Pfizer Ltd.v. Mazdoor Congress & Ors.
G.B. Mahajan & Ors. v. Jalgaon Municipal Council & Ors.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.
Netal Bag & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors.
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K. Rajan & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.