Tag: Bombay High Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage

In a suit for eviction under a lapsed license agreement, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot grant liquidated damages as an interim measure under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, it upheld the application of Order XV-A CPC (Bombay Amendment), directing the licensee to pay ascertained arrears and ongoing license fees with annual increments, failing which the defense can be struck off. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Leave and License Agreement executed on 08.10.2013 between the appellant licensors and the respondent licensee for 36 months, from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2016, with a 7% annual increase in license fee. Clause 19 stipulated liquidated damages of Rs. 10,000 per day if the licensee failed to vacate upon expiry. After the license period lapsed, ...
Read More
Public Trust Doctrine Extended: Supreme Court Says Man-Made Lakes Must Also Be Protected for Public Good
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public Trust Doctrine Extended: Supreme Court Says Man-Made Lakes Must Also Be Protected for Public Good

The Supreme Court ruled that a man-made lake constructed for irrigation is not a statutory "wetland" under the 2017 Rules, exempting it from a complete ban on permanent construction. However, the Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine, extending its protection to such artificial water bodies and prohibiting permanent structures to ensure ecological balance and public use. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Swacch Association, an environmental organization, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court challenging various construction and recreational projects in and around the Futala Lake in Nagpur. The association argued that the lake was a protected 'wetland,' and that the construction of a Viewer's Gallery on its bank, the installation of a Musical Fountain and an ar...
Read More
Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...
Read More
Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cracks Down on Misuse of Disciplinary Process, Imposes Costs on Bar Council

The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary complaint under the Advocates Act cannot be maintained by a litigant against the opposing party's advocate, absent a jural relationship. It further held that a State Bar Council's referral order must record reasoned satisfaction of a prima facie case of misconduct, and a cryptic order is legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed by Khimji Devji Parmar with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) against advocate Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula. Parmar alleged that his late father was a partner in a firm, M/s. Volga Enterprises, which had rights over a disputed property. A suit concerning this land was pending before the High Court, involving the original owner, Nusli Randelia, and a claimant, M/s. Uni...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be permanently foreclosed by an arbitrator based on a demurrer. The Court clarified that such a decision on demurrer is not a final adjudication on merits and does not preclude a subsequent examination based on evidence, as it would violate the fundamental mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) dated 23.07.2008 between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (Petitioner) and Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner invested Rs. 25 Crore, with a clause stipulating a refund if certain "Conditions Precedent" were not fulfilled within 90 days. The Respondent...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Police Must Register FIR on Cognizable Offence, Can’t Wait for Victim to Complain
28Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Police Must Register FIR on Cognizable Offence, Can’t Wait for Victim to Complain

In a significant ruling on police accountability, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 154 of the CrPC, registration of an FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court held that police inaction in such a scenario constitutes a dereliction of duty, and officers cannot avoid this statutory obligation by citing the victim's failure to formally pursue the matter. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the communal riots in Akola, Maharashtra, on May 13, 2023. The appellant, Mohammad Afzal, a 17-year-old minor, claimed that while returning home, he witnessed four unknown individuals brutally assaulting Vilas Gaikwad in an auto-rickshaw, mistaking him for a Muslim. The assailants then turned on Afzal, damaging his vehicle and attacking him on the ...
Read More
Supreme Court: TET Mandatory for All Teachers, But RTE Act’s Application to Minority Schools Under Scrutiny
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: TET Mandatory for All Teachers, But RTE Act’s Application to Minority Schools Under Scrutiny

This Supreme Court judgment holds that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for the appointment and promotion of all teachers under the RTE Act. However, the Bench expressed doubts about the correctness of the precedent in Pramati which exempts all minority institutions from the RTE Act, and has referred this specific constitutional question for reconsideration by a larger bench. Facts Of The Case: This set of civil appeals originated from conflicting judgments of the Bombay and Madras High Courts concerning the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and specifically the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to minority educational institutions. The appellants included minority educational institutions, state authorit...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail if FIR Discloses SC/ST Act Offence
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail if FIR Discloses SC/ST Act Offence

The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail when a prima facie case under the Act is made out from the FIR. The court's role at this stage is limited to verifying the FIR's averments and cannot extend to a mini-trial or appreciation of evidence. The High Court erred in disregarding this bar. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, belonging to the "Mang" Scheduled Caste community, lodged an FIR alleging that on 25.11.2024, the accused, Rajkumar Jain and others, confronted him outside his home. The accused were angered because the complainant had not voted for their candidate in the recent assembly elections. They verbally abused the complainant using the casteist slur "Mangtyano," beat him with an iron rod, and threatened...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal defamation proceedings against the bank officials. It held that for offences under the Indian Penal Code, there is no concept of vicarious liability. Prosecuting officers without arraigning the company as an accused and without specific allegations of their culpable role is impermissible and an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a loan default by Phoenix India, which had secured credit facilities from the Bank of Baroda. After the firm's account was classified as a non-performing asset, the Bank initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act. A critical error occurred when the Bank issued a symbolic possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, which inadvertently quoted the outstanding dues as approximately Rs. 56.15 cro...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

This Supreme Court judgement affirms that landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop their property declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The Court held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must formally invite the landowner to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The power of the State to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Act is subject to this preferential right and cannot be exercised before this right is legally extinguished. Facts Of The Case: The case concerned a land dispute in Mumbai, where Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) was the owner of a plot that had been encroached upon by slum dwellers. A portion of the land was declared a slum area in 1979, and later, in 2011, the entire plot was declared a Slum Reh...
Read More