Tag: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession

The Supreme Court affirmed the executability of a warrant of possession, ruling that a party who receives substantial monetary compensation in lieu of specific performance cannot retain possession of the property. The Court held that equity prevents unjust enrichment and that execution proceedings exist to enforce judgments, not to facilitate windfalls for unscrupulous litigants. Facts Of The Case: On 12.06.1989, the defendants agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff for ₹14,50,000, with ₹25,000 paid as earnest money. Possession of the vacant ground floor was handed over to the plaintiff. In 1990, the plaintiff first filed and withdrew a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, in June 1990, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the Trial Court ...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat
6Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

The Supreme Court upheld that lands contributed by proprietors during consolidation proceedings, but not specifically reserved or utilized for common purposes (known as bachat land), do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and Constitution Bench precedents, the Court affirmed that such land continues to belong to the original proprietors, dismissing the State's appeal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a challenge by landowners (respondents) to an amendment made by the State of Haryana in 1992 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This amendment, via Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, expanded the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate fee recovery suits filed by unaided private schools, as there is no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction under the Haryana School Education Act and Rules. The statutory remedy before the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee is available only to parents/students to challenge excessive fees, not to schools for recovery. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Apeejay School, an unaided private institution, filed suits for recovery of fees against students and their parents. The dispute arose from a fee hike implemented by the school for the academic year 2009-10, which the respondents refused to pay, continuing instead to remit only the pre-hike amount. The school's suits were initially decreed by the trial court. W...
Read More
Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned

The Supreme Court held that an investigation is not automatically vitiated solely because the informant and investigator are the same. This procedural irregularity must be examined on a case-specific basis for bias. The Court overruled the contrary precedent in Mohan Lal and restored the matter for a merits-based hearing. Facts Of The Case: Based on the secret information received on September 20, 2009, police intercepted a truck. The respondent, Gurnam @ Gama, was found sitting on a stack of bags in the cargo area, while the other respondent, Jaswinder Singh, was driving the vehicle. Upon search, the authorities recovered a significant quantity of 750 kilograms of poppy husk along with two motorcycles. Consequently, FIR No. 221 of 2009 was registered under the relevant sections of the N...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...
Read More