AI Overview...

• Locus Standi and Entitlement to Compensation - The court held that objections regarding locus standi raised by respondents were misconceived, and the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. The petitioner’s legal standing and claims were upheld after considering submissions made during proceedings before the Supreme Court. Puran Chandra Mathpal VS Union of India - Delhi

• Legal Issues on Compensation and Applicability of the 2013 Act - The court emphasized that legal issues concerning compensation assessment under the 2013 Act were central, affirming that compensation should be determined in accordance with the Act. The court also addressed the applicability of the 2013 Act in land acquisition cases, including the rights to fair compensation and transparency. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED vs BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED - Supreme Court

• Jurisdictional Challenges and Procedural Requirements - Challenges to jurisdiction, such as those against the NCLT, should be raised before the respective tribunal. The court reiterated that procedural compliance is essential, and petitions under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act must follow proper channels. Shriraj Investment And Finance Limited VS Union Of India Thr. Secretary - Delhi

• Challenges to Land Acquisition and Non-viability Claims - Petitions claiming lands were 'non-essential' or 'unviable' were dismissed, with the court noting that such issues should be addressed within the framework of the 2013 Act. The court emphasized that these challenges need to be raised at appropriate stages and not when the matter is before the Supreme Court. Kapil Kumar VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana

• Rejection of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Claims - The court found the rejection of rehabilitation packages by respondents to be illegal and arbitrary, declaring such actions against principles of the 2013 Act. The petitioner’s claim for rehabilitation was supported by prior court orders, emphasizing adherence to the Act’s provisions. Jonnalagadda Sri Lakshmi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh

• Application of the 2013 Act in Delay and Lapse Proceedings - The court ruled that the 2013 Act governs compensation for proceedings that have lapsed under earlier laws, directing the State to complete proceedings under the 2013 Act. It dismissed delay-based defenses raised by the State, reinforcing the Act’s primacy. State of West Bengal VS Premendu Sekhar Hazra - Calcutta

• Claims Under Section 24(2) and Pre-Notification Rights - The court held that relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was not applicable when construction or claims were made prior to notification under the 1894 Act, indicating that rights accrue from the notification stage onwards. Jalram VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana

• Scheme of Arrangement and Corporate Restructuring - Under Sections 230-232 of the 2013 Act, the Tribunal sanctioned schemes of arrangement and amalgamation, finding the processes fair, statutory requirements fulfilled, and objections adequately addressed. Mehul Finance and Investments Private Limited vs Polyset Plastics Private Limited - National Company Law Tribunal, FORBES & COMPANY LIMITED vs FORBES PRECISION TOOLS AND MACHINE PARTS LIMITED - National Company Law Tribunal

• Objections to Land Acquisition and Proper Procedure - The court ordered respondents to review objections raised by petitioners regarding land acquisition under the 2013 Act, emphasizing that proper procedures must be followed before dispossession. Mr. Varadala Sudershan vs The State of Telangana - Telangana

Analysis and Conclusion

The sources collectively affirm that petitions and objections related to land acquisition, rehabilitation, corporate schemes, and jurisdiction under the 2013 Act can be raised before the appropriate courts or tribunals. The courts consistently emphasize adherence to procedural requirements, proper filing stages, and the applicability of the 2013 Act in compensation, land acquisition, and corporate restructuring matters. Objections must be raised at the correct procedural stage; issues like locus standi, jurisdiction, or land viability are to be addressed within the framework of the 2013 Act and relevant legal provisions.