AI Overview...
-
Supreme Court's View on Property Acquisition and Demolition - The Court has held that the state's power to acquire property is not absolute; it is governed by public policy and requires payment of adequate compensation. Additionally, earlier legal undertakings stipulated that demolitions or dispossessions must be conducted lawfully. NARAYAN SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad
-
Application in Case Law and Arbitrations - The decision in Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. Daelim Industrial Co. has been referenced in subsequent cases like Modern Laminators, emphasizing that courts have not discussed their authority to modify, vary, or remit arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. These cases also involved instances where demolition of unauthorized constructions was ordered after due notice, such as the demolition by DTCP of temporary unauthorized structures raised by L&T. Puri Construction P. Ltd. VS Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - Delhi, PURI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND ORS. vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. - Delhi, PURI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND ORS. vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. - Delhi
-
Main Points and Insights:
- The Numaligarh case underscores that the state's power to acquire land is constrained by public policy and compensation obligations.
- The case has been influential in arbitration and demolition proceedings, clarifying that courts have limited scope to alter arbitral awards under Section 34.
- Demolition of unauthorized structures, such as those by L&T, was carried out after proper notice, highlighting adherence to legal procedures in demolition orders. NARAYAN SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad, Puri Construction P. Ltd. VS Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - Delhi, Delhi Jal Board VS Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, DELHI JAL BOARD VS KAVERI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. - Delhi, PURI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND ORS. vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. - Delhi, PURI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND ORS. vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. - Delhi
Analysis and Conclusion:
The references collectively indicate that while the government has the authority to acquire property and order demolitions, such actions are subject to legal constraints, including fair compensation and lawful procedures. The Numaligarh case is frequently cited to emphasize the limits of state power and the importance of lawful processes in property and demolition disputes. The case also influences arbitration law, particularly regarding the court's limited role in modifying arbitral awards.
Search Results for "Numaligarh Refinery Demolish"
2013 0 Supreme(All) 2424 • India - Allahabad
DEVI PRASAD SINGH, ASHOK PAL SINGH
It has been consistent view of Hon’ble Supreme Court that right available to the State to acquire property is not unfettered but it is based on public policy subject to payment of adequate compensation vide Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. ... In the earlier proceedings of 1976, the respondents had undertaken not to demolish the buildings or dispossess the appellants except in accordance with law.
2015 0 Supreme(Del) 723 • India - Delhi
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, NAJMI WAZIRI
In Modern Laminators, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. ... Further, the decisions in Numaligarh Refinery and Harishchandra Reddy (supra) did not discuss the Court’s power to modify, vary or remit the award under Section 34 of the Act. ... DTCP was compelled to demolish the unauthorized temporary constructions raised by L&T after due notice to it. ... 93.
2013 0 Supreme(Del) 2420 • India - Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH
... (iii) In Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. Daelim Industrial Co. ... It is wrongly recorded by the learned Arbitrator that the petitioner has failed to produce any material or evidence to demolish the plea of the respondent.
2013 0 Supreme(Del) 1603 • India - Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH
... (iii) In Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. vs. Daelim Industrial Co. ... It is wrongly recorded by the learned Arbitrator that the petitioner has failed to produce any material or evidence to demolish the plea of the respondent.
• India - Delhi High Court
In Modern Laminators, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.v. Daelim Industrial Company Ltd. ... Further, the decisions in Numaligarh Refinery and Harishchandra Reddy (supra) did not discuss the Court’s power to modify, vary or remit the award under Section 34 of the Act. ... DTCP was compelled to demolish the unauthorized temporary constructions raised by L&T after due notice to it. 93.
• India - Delhi High Court
In Modern Laminators, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.v. Daelim Industrial Company Ltd. ... Further, the decisions in Numaligarh Refinery and Harishchandra Reddy (supra) did not discuss the Court’s power to modify, vary or remit the award under Section 34 of the Act. ... DTCP was compelled to demolish the unauthorized temporary constructions raised by L&T after due notice to it. 93.
Filter by Legal Phrase
