Tag: K.V. Viswanathan

“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC
19Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC

The Supreme Court upheld that municipal bylaws and the Master Plan permitting mixed land use are enabling, not compulsory. Property owners cannot be forced to convert residential use to commercial use. A deemed sanction for purely residential reconstruction plans is valid if the applicant chooses not to avail the option for commercial activity. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, owners of an 85-year-old dilapidated residential house in Delhi, applied for sanction to demolish and reconstruct it in 2010. The Municipal Corporation failed to decide, leading the owners to obtain a deemed sanction from the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation challenged this order successively before the Additional District Judge, the Delhi High Court (via writ and rev...
Read More
Natural Justice Upheld: Supreme Court Says Parties Must Be Heard on Adverse Directions
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Natural Justice Upheld: Supreme Court Says Parties Must Be Heard on Adverse Directions

The Supreme Court ruled that a writ court cannot travel beyond the reliefs sought in the petition and pass adverse orders that render a petitioner worse off. Such directions, issued without notice, violate principles of natural justice. A litigant cannot be penalized for approaching the court, as it would seriously impact access to justice. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Chinmaya Mission Trust. The Trust had been allotted land in 1974 near the Vadakkunnathan Temple in Thrissur to build a hall for marriages and cultural activities, for an annual license fee of Rs. 101. After subsequent allotments, the total fee was fixed at Rs. 227.25 per annum. In 2014, the Board unilaterally enhanced this fee to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum. The Trust challenged this dr...
Read More
Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...
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