Kerala High Court - The Legal Chamber

Conspiracy in Construction: Supreme Court Slams Builder & Officials for Violating Zoning Rules

8Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Conspiracy in Construction: Supreme Court Slams Builder & Officials for Violating Zoning Rules

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the Kerala High Court's decision to proceed with criminal charges under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). The Court ruled that obtaining a fraudulent permit for illegal construction in a prohibited zone constituted a criminal conspiracy with municipal officials. The attempt to regularise the unauthorised building did not absolve the appellant of liability. The Court distinguished the architect's case, noting lack of active involvement in the conspiracy. Charges were affirmed, emphasising strict enforcement of anti-corruption laws. Facts Of The Case: The case involves G. Mohandas, the owner of a building in Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvanantha...

Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months. Facts Of The Case: This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1955 for "Verumpattom Rights" over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for "Jenmam ...

Child Custody Battle : Supreme Court Eases Custody Rules for NRI Father

The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a non-custodial parent to file repeated applications for visitation rights imposes undue procedural burdens. It held that interim custody arrangements must balance a child's welfare with both parents' rights, emphasizing structured access schedules over case-by-case approvals. The judgment establishes that meaningful parent-child contact shouldn't be hindered by procedural formalities when consistent involvement is demonstrated, particularly in transnational custody cases. The Court directed family courts to implement standing visitation orders pending final custody determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a custody dispute between Eby Cherian (appellant), an engineer working rotational overseas postings, and Jerema John (respondent), a ...