Startup employees often go on to found interesting ventures, basing their new work on the experience gained from their time building a company from scratch. But not all of those experiences are positive, and sometimes, a less-than-satisfactory exit can do more to fuel a founder’s fervor than anything else. In the case of Forward Earth’s […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Security researchers found a dozen vulnerabilities in 5G baseband chips found in phones made by Google, OPPO, OnePlus, Motorola, and Samsung.

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

One of the home-building industry’s leading chief executives on Wednesday outlined five themes for the housing market’s outlook, focusing on tight inventories, stringent mortgage standards and the preferences of millennials.

The national supply of homes for sale is getting squeezed by the small amount of equity millions of would-be sellers have in their properties and relatively weak output from home builders, according to economists speaking Friday at a real-estate conference in Miami.

A student received a seven-year sentence and a fine for using a fake SC certificate to gain admission to Motilal Nehru Medical College.

Every day, we drink water, eat food, grab a quick coffee, hop in the shower, or pick up our phones without thinking twice. They're just part of our daily routine. But what if some of these daily habits are silently affecting

Let me know if this sounds familiar: You’re drafting a masterful thought leadership piece and want to back up your...

The post A Complete Guide to Using Original Research to Elevate B2B Content Marketing appeared first on TopRank® Marketing.

Leeds : ARC Humanities Press, [2023]

Berlin : JOVIS Verlag GmbH, [2022]