Daily Judgments of 23 April
Supreme Court of India
2025 INSC 553
Parties: HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY VS HABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRs
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of his title over the suit property, based on a valid Gift Deed, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to seek cancellation of the subsequent sale deed.
The Court observed that since the plaintiff was not a party to the subsequent sale deed, he was not required to seek its cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff, having established his title through the valid Gift Deed, was entitled to a declaration that the subsequent sale deed was not binding on him.
The appeals were allowed, and the original decree passed by the Trial Court in favor of the plaintiff, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, was restored.
2025 INSC 554
Parties: MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH VS THE STATE OF BIHAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were flawed due to procedural irregularities, such as vague and indefinite charges, denial of opportunity to cross-examine a witness, and consideration of extraneous factors by the inquiry officer and the respondent authorities.
The court found that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings were substantially similar to the charges in the criminal proceedings, and the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case rendered the findings in the disciplinary proceedings vulnerable. The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's dismissal from service and directed the respondents to pay him a lump sum compensation of ₹30 lakh, inclusive of all service and retiral benefits, within three months. However, the court did not reinstate the appellant in service given his advanced age at the time of the proceedings.
2025 INSC 555
Parties: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS RAM PRAKASH SINGH
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the enquiry conducted against the respondent was vitiated as the report of the enquiry was not furnished to him, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the law laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of B. Karunakar v. ECIL.
The court rejected the argument that the respondent had to prove 'prejudice' due to non-furnishing of the enquiry report, and held that it is the responsibility of the disciplinary authority to justify why the report was not furnished. The court ruled that the requirement of furnishing the enquiry report is a mandatory procedural requirement, and the test of 'prejudice' cannot be applied to dilute this legal position.
The court upheld the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court setting aside the order of punishment against the respondent, and directed the appellant to release the respondent's full retiral benefits without any deduction.
2025 INSC 562
Parties: MUPPIDI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY VS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the criminal case against the appellants (the sister-in-law, her husband, and the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant) should be quashed. The court found the allegations against the appellants to be omnibus and general, without any specific allegations indicating their active involvement in the dowry-related dispute between the de-facto complainant and her husband.
Relying on its previous judgments in Geeta Mehrotra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana cases, the court deprecated the tendency to implicate the relatives of the husband in such cases without concrete evidence or particularized allegations.
2025 INSC 558
Parties: SIVAKUMAR VS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeals and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant (second accused). The court observed that the appellant was not the authorized officer empowered to conduct the SARFAESI auction and issue the sale certificate at the relevant time, as these actions were taken by his predecessor. Since the appellant had no direct involvement in the impugned transaction, the allegations against him were found to be baseless and not attracting any criminal liability. The court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to an abuse of process of law and cause undue harassment, as he was implicated without any valid grounds.
2025 INSC 560
Parties: PRAMILA DEVI VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the Additional Judicial Commissioner was not required to record detailed reasons while taking cognizance against the appellants, as it is sufficient that the Magistrate has applied its mind to the materials and formed a prima facie opinion about the commission of the alleged offenses under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court observed that the appellants did not categorically state that no material existed against them during the investigation, and the chargesheet mentioned the allegations against the appellants were found to be true based on the investigation, statements of the complainant, and site inspection.
The Court set aside the High Court's judgment which had remanded the matter to the Additional Judicial Commissioner for passing a fresh order, and directed the appellants to appear before the Additional Judicial Commissioner for the case to proceed further in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and has only decided the instant appeal on the legal issues.
2025 INSC 544
Parties: RAMYASH @ LAL BAHADUR VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the High Court's procedure of modifying its earlier judgment to convert the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC was in contravention of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits a court from altering or reviewing its judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's action was totally untenable and not permitted under the law. It allowed the appeals filed by the complainant and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, upholding the conviction and sentences originally awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court in its earlier judgment.
2025 INSC 561
Parties: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS SANJAY KUMAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court upheld the High Court's judgment acquitting Sanjay Kumar and Chaman Shukla of the charges against them. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix regarding the date and location of the alleged rape. The Court noted that the key witness, Jawala Devi, did not support the prosecution's version, and there was a lack of corroborating evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's view of acquittal was a plausible one, and interference with the judgment was not warranted.
2025 INSC 545
Parties: PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL VS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the seniority of the appellants was to be reckoned from the date of their appointment, as per the May 2, 2012 order of the High Court, which had attained finality. However, the Court noted that the delay by the State in appointing the appellants after the High Court's order should not prejudice them. Therefore, the Court directed that the appellants be shown as senior to the judicial officers appointed on July 10, 2012.
2025 INSC 549
Parties: BIJENDER SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the disability element of the disability pension at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996, despite his disability being assessed at less than 20%. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in not properly examining the issue of whether the appellant's disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service, as per the presumptions under the relevant rules and regulations. The court set aside the Tribunal's orders and directed the respondents to grant the appellant the disability pension with the applicable interest, as the presumption was in favor of the armed forces personnel in such cases.
2025 INSC 559
Parties: THE STATE OF SIKKIM VS DR MOOL RAJ KOTWAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI, JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court held that an employee who had already availed the maximum 300 days of leave encashment upon retirement cannot be granted leave encashment again after the period of re-employment. The court found that Rule 36 of the Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982, which provides for cash payment of unutilized earned leave up to 300 days on retirement, does not apply to re-employed government servants. The court reasoned that Rule 32 of the Leave Rules, which states the rules shall apply to re-employed employees as if they had entered service for the first time, cannot be read in conjunction with Rule 36 to revive the 300 days of leave encashment. The court set aside the High Court orders and allowed the appeals of the state government, holding the cancellation of the leave encashment order for the respondent employee was in accordance with the Leave Rules.
2025 INSC 557
Parties: SRI SHRIKANTH NS VS K MUNIVENKATAPPA
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in allowing the respondent's application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of documents, as the trial court had already rejected the respondent's plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. However, the Court affirmed the Appellate Court's order allowing the respondent to raise additional grounds in the pending regular appeal. The Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court allowing the production of documents, while upholding the order permitting the respondent to raise additional grounds in the appeal.
2025 INSC 552
Parties: RAJEEV GUPTA VS PRASHANT GARG
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that the plaintiffs' civil suit was barred by limitation, as the primary relief sought was cancellation of the sale deeds executed 11 years prior to filing the suit, which should have been instituted within 3 years as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The court further held that the sale deeds executed by Ramesh Chand in favor of the appellants could not be declared void, as Ramesh Chand had been portrayed as the owner of the property and the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the execution of the Will by the common ancestor as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The first appellate court was also held to have erred in granting the relief of possession to the plaintiffs without a decree for declaration of their title or cancellation of the sale deeds.
2025 INSC 546
Parties: RAJAN CHADHA VS SANJAY ARORA
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Contempt of Court Law
The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the second single judge of the High Court erred in reviewing and overturning the previous finding of contempt by another single judge of the same court. The Court noted that the second judge should not have re-examined the issue of whether the respondent committed contempt, as that would amount to sitting in appeal over the order of a coordinate bench. The proper course for the respondent would have been to file an appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Supreme Court therefore quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for consideration from the stage of the earlier order holding the respondent guilty of contempt.
2025 INSC 556
Parties: RAMACHANDRAIAH VS M. MANJULA
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the High Court was justified in directing a CBI investigation into the death of the deceased, K. Raghunath, despite the filing of a final report by the SIT.
The court noted the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the deceased's close association with a prominent politician, the disputed wills bequeathing his properties, and the concerns raised about the fairness of the earlier investigation. Exercising its extraordinary powers under the Constitution, the court affirmed the High Court's direction for a CBI investigation to ensure a credible and fair inquiry and to restore public confidence in the investigation.
The court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, holding that the magistrate had the power to direct the registration of the FIR, and the appellants' earlier challenge to this had become final. The court also held that the accused/potential accused have no right to be heard at the stage of further investigation directed by the court.
2025 INSC 548
Parties: DURGA PRASAD VS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA, JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings of exoneration was not fully justified, given the detailed examination of evidence and arguments by the Inquiry Officer.
Considering the significant time elapsed since the 1984 riots incident, the appellant's retirement, and the Inquiry Officer's thorough inquiry, the Court found it would be too harsh to make the appellant undergo a fresh disciplinary process.
Therefore, the Court allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside the High Court's order allowing a fresh disagreement note, and affirmed the quashing of the order of punishment against the appellant.
2025 INSC 550
Parties: SURESH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF HARYANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANMOHAN, JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The Court held that the delay in filing appeals against the order awarding compensation for land acquired by the state should be condoned, in line with the court's previous rulings that adopt a liberal approach in such matters. The court noted that while delay in itself is not a ground to deny just and fair compensation to the land losers, the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the delayed period being condoned. The court set aside the High Court's judgments refusing to condone the delay and remanded the matters back to the High Court for fresh consideration on all aspects, except the delay. The High Court was requested to decide the matters expeditiously, given the age of the original award.
2025 INSC 563
Parties: RAJU NARAYANA SWAMY VS STATE OF KERALA
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Area of Law: Service Law
The Court upheld the decision of the Review Committee to deny promotion to the appellant, an IAS officer, to the Chief Secretary grade, finding it to be a fair and objective assessment.
The court held that while the adverse entries in the appellant's ACRs prior to his earlier promotion in 2016 were "weak material", the Review Committee was entitled to consider the appellant's subsequent conduct, such as unauthorized absence in 2019-20, which showed a continuing trend of lack of discipline and interpersonal skills, essential for the highest echelons of civil service.
The court found no procedural irregularities or mala fide in the Review Committee's decision, which had considered the appellant's entire service record in the context of the requirement of collective leadership at the top.
2025 INSC 547
Parties: M/S. A. J. SHETTY AND CO. PVT. LTD VS ST. ANTONYS CHARITY INSTITUTES DIRECTOR
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Education Law
The Court held that the settlement agreement reached between the parties through mediation should be accepted and recorded. While the AICTE's regulations require the institute to be located on premises owned or on a long-term lease, the court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to allow the institute to operate from a temporary location for 2 years, before shifting to a new permanent campus, to prevent disruption to the education of around 250 students. The court directed the AICTE and Mangalore University to not insist on compliance with the ownership or long-term lease requirement for the 2-year period, provided the new permanent campus is completed within that time.
Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN.-3886/2024
Parties: KULDEEP Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Kuldeep, who was charged under Section 61(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found that the CBI's case against the accused, which alleges that he was working as a tout to facilitate the transfer of bribes to public servants for clearing import-export consignments at the Inland Container Depot, was prima facie supported by evidence such as audio recordings and the recovery of cash from his premises. The court held that custodial investigation was necessary to ascertain the full extent of the accused's involvement, and therefore, it did not find this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
FAO-355/2014
Parties: AYODHYA SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Railway Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal to dismiss the appellant's claim for compensation for the death of his son. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question, and the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body did not support the claim that the death was due to an "untoward incident" as defined under the Railways Act. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's analysis and dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not produce any tangible evidence to show that the deceased was traveling on the train or had a valid ticket.
W.P.(C)-4157/2025
Parties: SHIVRAJ SHARMA Vs CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Education Law
The Court held that the answer keys provided by the Consortium of National Law Universities for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-2025) were generally correct, except for a few questions where the court found the Consortium's answer to be palpably or demonstrably wrong. The court relied on the principles laid down in previous judgments, stating that courts should generally not interfere with the expert evaluation of questions and answers, and should only do so in rare and exceptional cases where the error is manifest. The court directed the Consortium to revise the marksheets and final selection list within 4 weeks, applying the changes made by the court to the benefit of all affected candidates.
Bombay High Court
WP/15701/2022
Parties: ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, DIST. NASHIK AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Town Planning Law
The High Court held that the purchase notice given by the petitioners under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 was valid, even though it was not accompanied by all the documents required. The court ruled that the authority cannot raise the defense of a defective purchase notice for lack of documents when it has failed to acquire the property within the stipulated period. The court also held that the subsequent reservation of the land after the expiry of the one-year period following the purchase notice was illegal, as per the ratio laid down in a previous judgment. The court directed the state to take steps to notify the lapsing of the writ lands and other lands where no steps were taken within the statutory period after the issuance of the purchase notice.
WP/8592/2024
Parties: BHAGWAN WAMAN GAIKWAD AND ORS Vs PRALHAD DUNDA JADHAV AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The Court held that the tenancy claim of the respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 to 14) over the agricultural land should be upheld, as the respondents were recognized as "protected tenants" under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, which did not exclude watan lands from its application. The court found that the petitioners, who claim to be watandars, failed to prove that the tenancy in favor of the respondents was unlawfully created without prior approval under the Hereditary Offices Act. Applying the principle of harmonious construction, the court ruled that the respondents' status as protected tenants should be recognized, and they are entitled to exercise the statutory right to purchase the land under the Tenancy Act. The court dismissed the petitions filed by the watandars challenging the orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that had upheld the respondents' tenancy claims.
FAST/10836/2023
Parties: BHARAT PETROLEUM COR.LTD., NAVI MUMBAI THR.ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) Vs KEDAR NAMDEO PAWAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE ADVAIT M. SETHNA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment dismissing the appellant's suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The key points are:
The main legal issue was whether a valid contract was formed between the parties through the offer letter dated 22 July 2014 and the appellant's acceptance letter dated 10 February 2016, which would determine if the appellant had a cause of action to file the suit.
The High Court found that the trial court did not properly consider the appellant's arguments and the legal principles around Order VII Rule 11 applications. The trial court should have examined the plaint in detail to determine if a cause of action was disclosed, instead of a cursory consideration.
The High Court has remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh consideration of the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11, after hearing the parties and passing a reasoned order. The High Court has not made a final determination on the merits, but has highlighted the legal principles the trial court should follow in examining the plaint.
BA/4504/2024
Parties: RUPESH TUKARAM KONDHALKAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the accused, Rupesh Tukaram Kondhalkar, in a case involving charges under Sections 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including inconsistencies between the victim's statement and the statements of the accused's family members. The court also highlighted the delay in conducting the DNA analysis and the need to prove the DNA report in accordance with the law, to give the accused an opportunity to rebut the evidence. Additionally, the court considered the long period of the accused's incarceration pending trial as a factor for granting bail.
The court imposed several conditions on the accused's bail, including reporting to the investigating officer, attending the trial court, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The observations made by the court were limited to the bail application and did not amount to any final determination on the merits of the case, which will be decided by the trial court based on the evidence led by the parties.
SMCP/2/2025
Parties: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs VINEETA SRINANDAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE ADVAIT M. SETHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held Mrs. Vineeta Srinandan, the Cultural Director of Seawoods Estates Limited, guilty of criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for issuing a circular that scandalizes and lowers the dignity and authority of the Court and interferes with the administration of justice.
The High Court, after examining the circular and the relevant Supreme Court precedents on the law of contempt, found that the contemnor's statements were a calculated attempt to bring down the image of the judiciary and impair the administration of justice. The High Court sentenced the contemnor to simple imprisonment for one week and a fine of Rs. 2,000.
APEAL/1025/2019
Parties: SAIYYAD MUSADDIK VAHIDUDDIN KADRI @ IMRAN MANSURI HASANI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the crucial circumstances against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as required in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The court noted issues with the prosecution's conduct of the case, including the failure to properly examine certain witnesses and establish the identity of the deceased and the motive for the crime. Accordingly, the court quashed the appellant's conviction and sentence, and ordered him to be set at liberty.
ARBP/472/2020
Parties: SURINDER SINGH Vs ARROW ENGINEERING LTD
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court dismissed a batch of petitions filed by multiple petitioners under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal in their disputes with the respondent, Arrow Engineering Ltd. The court found that the petitioners had lost interest in pursuing the arbitration proceedings, as evidenced by their inaction even after a previous order extending the arbitral tribunal's mandate until November 1, 2021. The court held that further extension of the mandate would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong the stale dispute, and accordingly dismissed all the petitions.
IAL/4230/2024
Parties: IMAGINE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs INDIABULLS INFRAESTATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that it has jurisdiction over the Section 29-A petitions filed by Indiabulls Infraestate Ltd., as the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed by this court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court rejected the respondents' (Bliss Habitat Pvt. Ltd. and Imagine Realty Pvt. Ltd.) plea for substitution of the Arbitrator, finding no grounds to do so under the Act. The court extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a further period of six months, noting that the allegations of delay and bias made by the respondents were not tenable. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 1,50,000 to be borne jointly and severally by the respondents.
WP/204/2025
Parties: VIVEK MADHAVLAL PITTIE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Urban Development Law
The High Court held that the landowner Pittie's rights cannot be nullified despite the termination of the original developer ORDL under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
The court found that the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the State was intended to protect the interests of all stakeholders - the landowner, the financier, and the slum dwellers.
The court ruled that the new developer Alperton appointed under the Amnesty Scheme is bound by the terms of the previous development agreement between Pittie and ORDL, and cannot claim a "clean slate". The court directed Alperton to either agree to the terms of the earlier agreement or exit the scheme, but cannot deprive the landowner Pittie of his rights.
WP/1940/1999
Parties: ABHISHEK MAHESH GARODIA AND ORS. Vs MAH.HSG.AREA and DEV. AUTHORITY and ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI, JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court upheld the cancellation of the allotment of a plot to the G.S. Garodia Charitable Trust by MHADA, finding that the trust had failed to make the balance payment within the stipulated time despite multiple opportunities, and had also suppressed material facts and documents from the court.
The court held that MHADA was justified in levying interest on the delayed payment as per its prevailing policy, and the trust's conduct amounted to waiver of its right to deny the interest liability. The court also ruled that MHADA's decision-making process was not arbitrary or malafide, and the principles of natural justice were not violated as the trust had committed a breach of the allotment conditions. The High Court accordingly dismissed the trust's petition, finding no merits in it.
WP/3650/1988
Parties: CYSIL RIBEIRO Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASWHTRAand ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
Area of Law: Rent Law
The High Court held that the respondents (Original Respondent No. 3 and his heirs Respondent Nos. 3A and 3B) do not qualify as "government allottees" under the Rent Act, 1999 and therefore cannot claim the status of deemed tenants. This is because Original Respondent No. 3 had retired from government service before the relevant cut-off date and an eviction order had been passed against him prior to that date. The court rejected the respondents' arguments and directed them to hand over possession of the property to the petitioner within six months.
Calcutta High Court
CRR/1770/2011
Parties: SITAL PRASAD SHAW @ GUPTA & ANOTHER vs ASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application filed by the petitioners, Sital Prasad Shaw and Kesab Prasad Shaw, and quashed the proceedings against them under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.
The court found that the prosecution could not complete the evidence within 4 years from the date of the amended Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure coming into force in 1989, as required under the law. The court held that the delay of over 43 years in the trial was not attributable to the petitioners and amounted to a violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Considering the abuse of process and the prolonged pendency of the case, the court exercised its extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings against the surviving petitioner, Sital Prasad Shaw, and directed that he be discharged.
CRR/2735/2022
Parties: HEMENDRA MULLICK vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner Hemendra Mullick and quashed the criminal proceedings against him. The court found that the allegations against the petitioner, who is the owner of the tenanted premises, were vague and general, without any specific evidence of his involvement in the alleged offences under Sections 341/420/406/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., which provides guidelines for when the court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that the case falls under the categories mentioned in the Bhajanlal judgment, where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner.