civil original jurisdiction - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments

31Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments

This Supreme Court judgment directs statutory reconstitution of the Delhi Ridge Management Board under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to function as a single-window authority. It mandates the Board to ensure the protection, removal of encroachments, and ecological restoration of both the notified Ridge and the Morphological Ridge, with oversight by the Central Empowered Committee and the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the long-standing litigation over the protection and management of the Delhi Ridge, a vital ecological area within the National Capital Territory. The primary legal proceedings originate from Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India) and connected matters. The Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicat...

Commercial vs. Residential Use: Supreme Court Decides on Delhi Market Plot Dispute

In a significant order, the Supreme Court clarified the legal framework governing the use of upper floors in designated Local Shopping Centres (LSCs) in Delhi. The Court held that while the ground floor is permitted for commercial use, utilizing upper floors for commercial purposes requires payment of conversion charges and regularization of any unauthorized construction as per the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 and relevant building bylaws. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns an application for the de-sealing of a commercial premise at Plot No. 106 in New Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi. The applicant, M.C. Mehta, filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) in the long-standing Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985) concerning unauthorized constructions and land misu...

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...