That legislation can be struck down on ground of manifest arbitrariness is no longer open to any doubt, as has been held in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1. _____ Section 3(2) of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Section 3(2) of The Benami […]Read more "The Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness"
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"
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"
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"
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"
Court in a series of decisions has reiterated, Courts should not rush in where even scientists and medical experts are careful to tread. We cannot evolve a judicial policy on medical issues. However, Court certainly must defend assertion of fundamental rights against Executive tyranny draped in disciplinary power [Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, […]Read more "Dialogic Jurisdiction III / The Revival of Ray LXXXIV"
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"
A party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when facts or documents have been wilfully concealed from him. A party who had acted fraudulently should not be given benefit of limitation, running in its favor, by virtue of such frauds [Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549]. Section 17 of […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXVII: The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint IV"
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"
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"
The question had been floating for a while. It was January 1, 2019 when I wondered who amongst then Chief Justices of HCs, if elevated, could be our 51st CJI. January 18, 2019 – we finally received an answer. CJI No. 51 would be Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wasn’t ever a Chief Justice of […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Article No. 1101"
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"
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"
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"
Chief Justice A.N. Ray, speaking for a Two-Judge Bench of this Court, in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 2 SCC 506 observed, Municipality functions for public benefit and when it “acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is […]Read more "Unauthorized Constructions / The Revival of Ray LXX"
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"
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"
“It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of […]Read more "The True Owner"
We overrule Himangni Enterprises, (2017) 10 SCC 706 and hold, landlord-tenant disputes are Arbitrable as The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not forbid or foreclose Arbitration. However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by Rent Control Legislation would not be Arbitrable when a specific Court or Forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVIII Answered: Arbitrability, The Transfer of Property Act"
Section 122 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides, a valid gift must be gratuitous in nature and must be made voluntarily. The said giving away implies a complete dispossession of the ownership in the property by the Donor. Acceptance of a gift by the Donee can be done anytime during the lifetime of […]Read more "Gifts, The Transfer of Property Act II"