Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Revenue Recovery Act

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

RUKMINI AMMA & ORS.versusRAJESWARY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 19222 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants held a usufructuary mortgage over land mortgaged by the respondents in 1958, 1959 and 1961. While the mortgage subsisted, the property was attached under the Revenue Recovery Act for the mortgagor's agricultural income tax arrears and sold at public auction, the highest bid being the son of the mortgagee

GANESANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2020 INSC 59614 October 2020Dismissed

Ganesan was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 based solely on the testimony of a 13‑year‑old victim (PW‑3). The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment (the minimum under Section 8) and ordered Rs 1 lakh compensatio

RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.versusU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3848 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants Rakesh Kumar Goel and others purchased two government plots in Ghaziabad through an auction purportedly held under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. The High Court set aside the auction on the ground that the appellants failed to deposit the required 25% of the bid immed

S.D. BANDIversusDIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER, KSRTC & ORS.

2013 INSC 4405 July 2013Disposed off

The appeal arose from the appellant, a driver of KSRTC, who failed to vacate a government quarter after being transferred and whose eviction order was upheld by the High Court but later set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court examined the effectiveness of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,

A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS.versusV.N. SUBRAMANIYAM

2012 INSC 2633 July 2012Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search