- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court in Bullet Train Case: Agrees to Examine Godrej Plea against High Court's Refusal on Land Acquisition
Supreme Court in Bullet Train Case: Agrees to Examine Godrej Plea against High Court's Refusal on Land Acquisition
The Supreme Court agreed to examine a plea against 9th February, judgment passed by the Bombay High Court which dismissed a petition filed by the Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd challenging the Maharashtra government's grant of Rs 264 crore in compensation for acquiring its land for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet train project.
The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud scheduled the matter for hearing on February 24 on an urgent mention made by the counsel on the behalf of the appellant company.
The Godrej Group moved Bombay High Court challenging the award and compensation of Rs. 264 crore by the Deputy Collector on 15th September, 2022, for acquiring 39,252 sq m (9.69 acres), stating that it was much less than the Rs. 572 crore offered initially. It had filed the writ petition, challenging the provisions of the law.
The Bombay High Court, however, described the bullet train project as "of national importance and public interest" and dismissed the petition.
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and M M Sathaye said, "We do not find any illegality in the award or in the decision taken by the appropriate government in granting extension to make an award by exercising powers under first proviso to Section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act."
The Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail (MAHSR) is the pet project of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the project, which passes through Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Maharashtra, is being executed by the National High-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL).