Rajasthan HC rejects Bail to REET Paper Leak Accused Ram Kripal Meena
Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict on Muslim Parties' Plea Against Varanasi Court Order
Jharkhand HC Announces 55 Assistant Positions in Ranchi; Online Applications Now Open!
Sister-in-Law's Frequent Visits Insufficient to Establish Residence in DV Case : Bombay HC
P&H HC Grants Interim Bail to Eight-Month Pregnant Woman Accused in Murder Case, Citing Health Risks to Mother and Unborn Child
Kerala HC Denies 'Non-Creamy Layer' Certification Plea, Citing Ineligibility Based on Hereditary Occupation Criteria
ED Shifts Sameer Wankhede's Money Laundering Case to Delhi, Informs Bombay HC
J& H HC Emphasizes Due Process, Slams Overuse of Preventive Detention under PSA
Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Abhijit Majumder Over Periyar Remarks
Calcutta HC Takes Suo Motu Action on Alleged Sexual Assault and Land Transfer in Sandeshkhali
SC dismissed appeal of Godrej & Boyce against Bombay HC order which refused to set aside the acquisition of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd's plot

SC dismissed appeal of Godrej & Boyce against Bombay HC order which refused to set aside the acquisition of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd's plot

On February 24, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal Godrej & Boyce filed against a decision by the Bombay High Court that upheld the acquisition of the Vikhroli plot owned by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project. A bench made up of CJI DY Chandrachud, Judge PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala was presented with the case. The court stated that although the petitioner was free to request increased compensation for the plot, his request for acquisition of the site—for which the government had already taken possession and building had already begun—could not be considered.

The Bombay High Court had ruled that because 97% of the land has already been acquired and is being used significantly, it was not possible for it to use its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the acquisition of a small portion of the land at this stage of the project. On identical grounds, the Supreme Court similarly rejected the appeal. Judge DY Chandrachud stated:

"Mr Rohatgi, much water has flown, the possession is taken, the construction has commenced. Ultimately, you can still ask for the 572 crores or maybe more. You are not bound by even 572 crores. But now the discussion (concerning the plot) is academic because the construction has also started."

CJI DY Chandrachud added–

"We will give you liberty, which you any way have, that your claim for compensation be resolved at the earliest. We will sit down a period of six months for that. This is only a question of money. This is a national project."

The appeal was therefore denied. The jurisdictional court must make a decision on an enhancement of compensation within six weeks of the petitioner filing a reference, according to the court.

Case Title: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd vs State of Maharashtra 
Citation: SLP(C) No. 3583/2023

Read the order dated 24.02.2023

Appearance of advocates

For Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
 Mr. Jai Munim, Adv.
 Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
 Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
 Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
 Mr. R.p. Raghavan, Adv.
 Ms. Lakshmi Iyyer, Adv.
 Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) 
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
 Mr. Siddharath Dharmadhikari, Adv.
 Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
 Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
 Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

 Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
 Mr. Balbir Singh, A.S.G.
 Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR
 Ms. Meena Sehrawat, Adv.
 Mr. Suransh Chaudhary, Adv.
 Mr. Akash Shukla, Adv.
 Mr. Sushaar, Adv.
 Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
 Mr. Vijay Jakhwal, Adv.
 Mr. Birendra Bikram, Adv.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy