The 50 Most Important Indian Court Judgments Explained
| # | Case Name |
|---|---|
| 1 | A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case) |
| 2 | Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab |
| 3 | Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra |
| 4 | Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab |
| 5 | BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India |
| 6 | Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India |
| 7 | Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar |
| 8 | Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) v. Nisar Khan |
| 9 | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal |
| 10 | Daniel Latifi v. Union of India |
| 11 | Dr (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai |
| 12 | Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council |
| 13 | Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India |
| 14 | Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India |
| 15 | Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India |
| 16 | Gaurav Jain v. Union of India |
| 17 | Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar |
| 18 | I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab |
| 19 | In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra |
| 20 | In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover |
| 21 | Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India |
| 22 | Indra Sawhney v. Union of India |
| 23 | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India |
| 24 | Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India |
| 25 | M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi |
| 26 | M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame |
| 27 | Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’costa |
| 28 | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India |
| 29 | Minerva Mills v. Union of India |
| 30 | Mr. X v. Hospital Z |
| 31 | Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani |
| 32 | Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia |
| 33 | Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India |
| 34 | Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel |
| 35 | Parmanand Katara v. Union of India |
| 36 | PUCL v. Union of India |
| 37 | Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab |
| 38 | Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra |
| 39 | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India |
| 40 | Sakshi v. Union of India |
| 41 | Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra |
| 42 | Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty |
| 43 | Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab |
| 44 | Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India |
| 45 | Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement |
| 46 | State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat |
| 47 | State of Rajasthan v. Union of India |
| 48 | Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration |
| 49 | Vincent v. Union of India |
| 50 | Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan |
(26) M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630
Facts in Brief
This Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, challenging the permission granted to certain builders to escalate the rates in respect of construction permitted on exempted land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The State of Maharashtra was considering the formulation of certain guidelines in respect of constructions over exempted lands covered under Section 20 of the Act.
Under the scheme of the Act, urban agglomerations were divided into four classes, and a ceiling was prescribed for each classification. Vacant land in excess of the ceiling under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act vested in the State by way of acquisition, and the vacant sites thus acquired by the State were intended to be utilised for purposes of housing; Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provided for the disposal of vacant land. The Act therefore purported to take away the excess land from its holders, and to utilise the same for purposes of housing and other public purposes.
Judgment
Considering the gravity of the situation at hand and the alleged mala fides, the Court directed that the genuineness of the claims be scrutinised by an efficient judicial officer, not below the rank of an Additional District Judge, in respect of the schemes undertaken in every agglomeration — and even those which the State Government may undertake in future.
The Court observed that in the event of the claims being found tenable, the builders would be directed to provide accommodation in terms of the scheme for those found to be acceptable. Further, in order to ensure implementation of the said direction, the builders were called upon not to make any commitment or allotments for flats until the claims of the 1,420 applicants were scrutinised, and allotment of accommodation for such number of persons as were found entitled had been provided.
For the Common Man
The Court in this case laid down measures to impress upon every committee that the fulfilment of the laudable purpose of providing a home to the poor and homeless depends upon its commitment to the goal, and that every effort should be made by it to ensure that the builder does not succeed in frustrating that purpose.










