Tag: Property Dispute

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...
Read More
Supreme Court: Enforcing Civil Rights Through Injunction Order is Not Wrongful Restraint
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Enforcing Civil Rights Through Injunction Order is Not Wrongful Restraint

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage, courts must sift evidence to determine if a "strong suspicion" exists. It clarified that an offence under Section 354C IPC requires capturing a "private act," which was absent. The Court further ruled that wrongful restraint is not made out if the accused bona fide believes in a lawful right to obstruct. Facts Of The Case: On March 19, 2020, a complaint/FIR was lodged by Ms. Mamta Agarwal against the appellant, Tuhin Kumar Biswas. The complainant alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she, along with her friend and workmen, attempted to enter a property in Salt Lake, Kolkata, the appellant intimidated them and restrained them from entering. It was further alleged that the appellant clicked her photogr...
Read More
Supreme Court Draws the Line: When a Business Dispute Becomes a Civil, Not Criminal, Matter
10Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Draws the Line: When a Business Dispute Becomes a Civil, Not Criminal, Matter

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, holding that the complaint failed to establish essential ingredients. Allegations did not demonstrate dishonest inducement for cheating nor fraudulent misappropriation for criminal breach of trust. The Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes or for vindictive prosecution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Inder Chand Bagri, and four others, including the complainant-respondent No. 1 Jagadish Prasad Bagri, formed a partnership firm in 1976. The appellant contributed his land to the firm for constructing godowns, which were leased to the Food Corporation of India. A supplementary agreement in 1981 permitted the appellant to use the land for his benefit, stipulating it would r...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Grounds for Rejecting a Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the suit, affirming that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a threshold scrutiny. Contentions regarding cause of action, limitation, and res judicata are mixed questions requiring a full trial, not adjudication at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No.26246 of 2023) filed by the respondents (Archbishop of Bangalore & Others) against the appellant, C.M. Meenakshi, and others. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of absolute ownership over a scheduled property in Bangalore, cancellation of two sale deeds from 2014 and 2020, and permanent injunctions to prevent any alteration or alienation of the property. During the suit's pendency, defendants 1 to 8 f...
Read More
Supreme Court: Decree for Specific Performance Does Not Create Title, So Assignment Deed Need Not Be Registered
6Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Decree for Specific Performance Does Not Create Title, So Assignment Deed Need Not Be Registered

The Supreme Court held that a deed assigning a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning immovable property does not require mandatory registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. This is because such a decree does not itself create, assign, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in the immovable property; it merely confers a right to seek performance through court execution. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are the legal heirs of a judgment-debtor against whom an ex-parte decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning immovable property was passed on 13.09.1993. The first respondent, Shanmugam, claimed to be the assignee of this decree by virtue of an assignment deed dated 17.07.1995. In 2004, the assignee filed an e...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Counter-Claim Against Co-Defendant Not Allowed

The Supreme Court held that a counter-claim by impleaded defendants against a co-defendant is not maintainable in a suit for specific performance. Such a claim must be incidental to the original suit's cause of action and cannot be independently raised against another defendant. The Court set aside the admitted counter-claim. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sanjay Tiwari, filed a suit for specific performance against the first respondent, Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, based on an alleged oral agreement dated 02.12.2002 for the sale of 0.93 acres of land. The plaintiff claimed full payment was made and he was put in possession. The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that defendants 2 and 3 were in possession of part of the property, making the suit defective for non-joinde...
Read More
“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
Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On
19Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revives Forgery Case: Fake Stamp Paper Probe Must Go On

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate's referral under Section 156(3) CrPC for police investigation is justified when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence and such a direction is conducive to justice. The High Court's orders quashing the referral were set aside, emphasizing that the police must be allowed to investigate prima facie allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani, filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a property via an oral gift from his father, challenging a registered sale deed in favour of accused No. 1, Veena. The suit was dismissed in 2013. During the pendency of his appeal (RFA No. 4095/2013) before the High Court, a status quo order on the property's title and possession was initially granted b...
Read More
Arbitrator’s Inaction for 4 Years Leads to Award Being Quashed: Supreme Court Ruling
16Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Arbitrator’s Inaction for 4 Years Leads to Award Being Quashed: Supreme Court Ruling

In appeals arising from a delayed and unworkable arbitral award, the Supreme Court held that inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement can vitiate an award if it explicitly and adversely impacts its findings, rendering it contrary to public policy or patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Court further clarified that such an unworkable award, which fails to resolve disputes and irreversibly alters parties' positions, is liable to be set aside, and in exceptional circumstances, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 17.12.2004 between respondent landowners and a developer (later amalgamated into the ...
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