Compound Interest

A wide variety of rival submissions have been presented before us on whether Consumer Fora had been justified in awarding and approving ‘compound interest’. An attempt to seek ‘compound interest’ in such real estate dealings did not meet with approval of this Court and in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 […]

Read more "Compound Interest"

Pushtaini, Non-Pushtaini Landholders

While, prima facie, said classification seems reasonable, the devil lies in the details. Courts have now adopted proportionality test [Om Kumar v. Union Of India,(2001) 2 SCC 386]. A classification should come with safeguards against its potential abuse [Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 459]. The said notification by way of […]

Read more "Pushtaini, Non-Pushtaini Landholders"

Thika Tenancy IV

Nemai Chandra Kumar v. Mani Square Limited, 2015 (2) SCALE 657 concluded, Nemai Chandra Kumar & Ors. were “Thika Tenants” within the meaning of Section 2(5) of The Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. It was held, “Any Structure” includes both ‘Kutcha’ (temporary) or ‘Pucca’ (permanent) Structure. Mani Square Limited’s Review Petition (Civil) No. 1483 of 2015 succeeded […]

Read more "Thika Tenancy IV"

[Intellectual] Forum Shopping III

Since 2019, Courts where IPR cases are being listed in Delhi: District Judges/ADJs (Non-Commercial) for suits valued below Rs. 3 Lakhs; District Judges/ADJs (Commercial) for suits valued Between Rs. 3 Lakhs till Rs. 2 Crores; Commercial Division of High Court (Original Jurisdiction) for suits above Rs. 2 Crores. Can District Judges (Commercial) entertain IPR suits […]

Read more "[Intellectual] Forum Shopping III"

Resides in Madras Presidency

Ultimately, question of ‘residence’ in every case depends on facts. But, ‘resides’ usually means something more than a flying visit or a casual stay [Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, (1964) 2 SCR 73]. V. Prakash could least be said to be a person visiting India casually or as a transit tourist. Term in question about […]

Read more "Resides in Madras Presidency"

Care for Elders ≠ Old Age Home

Law recognizes three types of possession –  of an owner, as a tenant and permissive possession, possession which otherwise would be illegal or of a trespasser. We are concerned with permissive possession. The possession of Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Meera Agarwal in a room of an Old Age Home is of a licensee permitted to […]

Read more "Care for Elders ≠ Old Age Home"

Right to Property

While right to property is no longer a fundamental right [The Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978], right against deprivation of property, unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A. Nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process or authorization of law. The […]

Read more "Right to Property"

Forum Shopping II

Predominantly, Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated, ‘forum shopping’ take several hues and shades but concept of ‘forum shopping’ has not been rendered an exclusive definition in any Indian statute. Indian Judiciary’s observation and obiter dicta has aided in streamlining concept of ‘forum shopping’ in Indian legal system. Court has condemned practice of ‘forum […]

Read more "Forum Shopping II"

The Doctrine of Lis Pendens

It is well settled, Doctrine of Lis Pendens is based on ground, decision of a Court in a suit should be binding not only on litigating parties but also on those who derive title pendente lite. _____ Doctrine of Lis Pendens is based on maxim ‘pendente lite nihil innovetur’ which means ‘pending litigation, nothing new […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Lis Pendens"

Retrospective v. Retroactive II

It manifests, legislative intent is to make The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 applicable not only to projects which were yet to commence after RERA became operational but also to bring under its fold ongoing projects. The distinction between retrospective and retroactive has been explained in Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills v. Union of […]

Read more "Retrospective v. Retroactive II"

Nature’s Gifts

Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 397 struck a ‘discordant note’, drawing a distinction between ‘nature’s gifts’ such as charcoal, mahua flowers or minerals and articles produced with aid of human labour which, according to it, was not included in ‘forest produce’ under The Kerala Forest Act, 1961. Suresh Lohiya did not […]

Read more "Nature’s Gifts"

The Revival of Ray LXXII

Two-Judge Bench of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610 has heavily relied on Three-­Judge Bench of Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, (1977) 3 SCC 247. Court held, there was no reason as to why general principle laid down in Narandas Karsondas, with reference to Section 60 of The Transfer of Property […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray LXXII"

Registered Instruments of Tenancy

Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 1 has categorically held, if the tenancy claim is for any term exceeding one year, the tenancy can be made only by a registered instrument. Three-­Judge Bench of this Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, (2019) 9 SCC 94 […]

Read more "Registered Instruments of Tenancy"

Binding Precedent

Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243 and Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, (2006) 8 SCC 322 were not brought to notice of this Court in Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173. In absence of consideration, we find Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape will not lay down a binding precedent. – […]

Read more "Binding Precedent"