Tag: Justice B.R. Gavai

Commercial vs. Residential Use: Supreme Court Decides on Delhi Market Plot Dispute
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More
Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later

The Supreme Court held that teachers appointed before 31st March 2015 were granted a grace period until 31st March 2019 to acquire the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification under the amended RTE Act. Since the appellants had cleared TET well before this deadline, their subsequent termination solely for lacking the certificate at the initial appointment was illegal and set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the appellants, Uma Kant and another, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur, in March 2012. Their appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement from July 2011. At the time of their appointment, the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification, introduced by a National Counci...
Read More
Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

The Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot directly summon an Advocate to disclose privileged communications with a client under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Such a summons violates the attorney-client privilege and the accused's fundamental rights. Any exception must be explicitly justified, approved by a senior officer, and is subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the BNSS. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered at the Odhav Police Station in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other statutes concerning a loan agreement dispute. Following the arrest of an accused, an Advocate filed a successful bail application before the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the Assistant C...
Read More
Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sides with Property Buyer: Restores ₹20 Crore Award Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

This Supreme Court judgment interprets Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, affirming the method for determining market value based on comparable sale instances. It clarifies that rental compensation for pre-acquisition occupation is not statutorily mandated, but equitable interest may be awarded under Section 28 for specific periods of dispossession. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns a long-standing dispute over a 37-Are (3,700 sq. m.) plot of land in Nashik, originally part of Survey No. 8/1. In 1972, the Nashik Municipal Corporation (then Council) resolved to reserve the land for public purposes and took possession of this portion without formal acquisition. A 1978 notification under land acqu...
Read More
Supreme Court: Long Judgment Isn’t a Flaw If Quashing is Justified, Dismisses Telangana’s Plea
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Long Judgment Isn’t a Flaw If Quashing is Justified, Dismisses Telangana’s Plea

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the FIR and complaint failed to disclose a cognizable offense against the accused. The Court found the allegations vague, unsubstantiated, and lacking any material to connect the accused to the crime, making the case unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a written complaint dated May 28, 2015, by a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Hyderabad. He alleged that the fourth accused (A4), Jerusalem Mathai, had offered him Rs. 2 crores and a ticket to leave the country to abstain from voting in the upcoming Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections. A subsequent paragraph in the same complaint mentioned a higher offer of Rs. 5 crores fr...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...
Read More
State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...
Read More
Domicile vs. Study: Supreme Court Explains Who Qualifies as a “Local” for Medical Seats
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Domicile vs. Study: Supreme Court Explains Who Qualifies as a “Local” for Medical Seats

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Telangana's rules defining 'local candidates' for medical admissions. It ruled that the classification, based on consecutive years of study/residence within the state, is not arbitrary and falls within the legislative competence under Article 371D, Entry 25 of List III, and the relevant Presidential Order. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from challenges to the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, and their 2024 amendment, which defined 'local candidates' eligible for 85% state quota seats. The definition required candidates to have studied in educational institutions within the state for four consecutive years ending with the qualifying examination, or to have resided there for the same period if not...
Read More
Supreme Court Modifies Order: Pre-1996 Encroachments on Forest Land Spared from Eviction
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Modifies Order: Pre-1996 Encroachments on Forest Land Spared from Eviction

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order concerning forest land regularization. It declined to exempt small fragmented land parcels from being declared as protected forest but clarified the state could utilize them for purposes under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, following due procedure. The Court also allowed a one-time exemption for pre-December 1996 encroachments on specified categories of land, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from the landmark Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case (W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995), which deals extensively with forest conservation across India. Within this ongoing litigation, an Interim Application (I.A. No.12465/2019) was filed concerning the classification and treatme...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and thus governed by the CrPC. Consequently, a review petition filed under Order XLVII of the CPC is not maintainable. The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors, and the High Court's recall order constituted an impermissible substantive review. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated between two groups, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, regarding a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. A key point of contention was the validity of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of their joint venture company, Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), held on 30.09.2006. The Bakshi Group relied on ...
Read More