Property Law

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Holding Bank Liable in Insurance Claim Dispute: State Bank of India vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020)

/ Consumer Disputes Redressal, Consumer Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Insurance Claims, Judges, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, Settlement

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Holding Bank Liable in Insurance Claim Dispute: State Bank of India vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can hold a bank liable for an insurance claim when the borrower has not challenged the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s […]

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Holding Bank Liable in Insurance Claim Dispute: State Bank of India vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles inheritance rights of sons born before adoption: Kalindi vs. Manohar (2020)

/ Class I Heirs, Hemant Gupta, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 8, Inheritance Rights, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Settles Inheritance Rights of Sons Born Before Adoption: Kalindi vs. Manohar (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether sons born to a Hindu man before his adoption are entitled to inherit his property in his adoptive family. CASE TYPE: Civil – Inheritance Law Case Name: Kalindi Damodar Garde (D) By Lrs. vs Manohar Laxman Kulkarni (D)

Supreme Court settles inheritance rights of sons born before adoption: Kalindi vs. Manohar (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Requirements for Compromise Decrees in Property Disputes: Mohammade Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020)

/ Adverse Possession, Ashok Bhushan, Compromise Decree, Immovable Property, Judges, M.R. Shah, Property Law, Registration Act, 1908, Registration Act, 1908 with Section 17, Registration of Documents

Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Requirements for Compromise Decrees in Property Disputes: Mohammade Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a compromise decree regarding property that is the subject matter of a suit requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. vs. Rajkumar

Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Requirements for Compromise Decrees in Property Disputes: Mohammade Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enforces Counsel’s Commitment for Tenant Re-induction in Reconstruction Case: Om Prakash vs. Suresh Kumar (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Civil Law, Counsel's Authority, Dinesh Maheshwari, Eviction, Hemant Gupta, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 with Section 14, Judges, Rent Control

Supreme Court Enforces Counsel’s Commitment for Tenant Re-induction in Reconstruction Case: Om Prakash vs. Suresh Kumar (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a statement made by a counsel on behalf of a client, regarding re-induction of a tenant, is binding on the client. CASE TYPE: Civil (Rent Control/Eviction). Case Name: Om Prakash vs. Suresh Kumar. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Enforces Counsel’s Commitment for Tenant Re-induction in Reconstruction Case: Om Prakash vs. Suresh Kumar (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies parity in service termination cases: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs Ram Gopal (2020)

/ B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Delay and Laches, Judges, Parity in Service, S. A. Bobde, Service Law, Surya Kant, Termination of Service

Supreme Court clarifies parity in service termination cases: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs Ram Gopal (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee, whose services were terminated due to irregularities in the initial selection process, is entitled to reinstatement based on parity with another employee who was initially terminated for the same reason but was later allowed

Supreme Court clarifies parity in service termination cases: U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs Ram Gopal (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bengaluru Court’s Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case: Shyam Lal Devda vs. Parimala (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Jurisdiction, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with Section 27, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds Bengaluru Court’s Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case: Shyam Lal Devda vs. Parimala (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Magistrate Court in Bengaluru has jurisdiction to hear a domestic violence case when the matrimonial home is elsewhere, but the aggrieved person is temporarily residing in Bengaluru. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Shyam Lal Devda

Supreme Court Upholds Bengaluru Court’s Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case: Shyam Lal Devda vs. Parimala (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Land Dispute Case: Pre-Partition Tenants’ Rights to be Decided: Indu Bai vs. State of Telangana (21 January 2020)

/ Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Land Dispute, Land Law, Pre-Partition Tenancy Rights, State Government Land

Supreme Court Remands Land Dispute Case: Pre-Partition Tenants’ Rights to be Decided: Indu Bai vs. State of Telangana (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether pre-partition tenants have a right to continue in possession of land transferred to the State Government. CASE TYPE: Land Dispute, Property Law Case Name: Indu Bai & Ors. vs. State of Telangana &

Supreme Court Remands Land Dispute Case: Pre-Partition Tenants’ Rights to be Decided: Indu Bai vs. State of Telangana (21 January 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court on Adverse Possession: Uttam Chand vs. Nathu Ram (2020)

/ Adverse Possession, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Limitation Act, Limitation Act with Article 65, Property Dispute, Property Law

Supreme Court overturns High Court on Adverse Possession: Uttam Chand vs. Nathu Ram (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: Shri Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs. vs. Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 January 2020 Date of

Supreme Court overturns High Court on Adverse Possession: Uttam Chand vs. Nathu Ram (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles eviction of entire premises on subletting of a portion in tenancy dispute: K. Lubna & Ors. vs. Beevi & Ors. (2020) INSC 16

/ Judges, K.M. Joseph, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 with Section 11(4)(i), Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 with Section 2(1), Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Tenancy Dispute

Supreme Court Rules Subletting Part of Tenancy Leads to Eviction of Entire Premises LEGAL ISSUE: Whether subletting a portion of a tenanted premises allows for eviction of the entire premises. CASE TYPE: Tenancy Dispute Case Name: K. Lubna & Ors. vs. Beevi & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 January 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13

Supreme Court settles eviction of entire premises on subletting of a portion in tenancy dispute: K. Lubna & Ors. vs. Beevi & Ors. (2020) INSC 16 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction on Subletting: A. Mahalakshmi vs. Bala Venkatram (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Eviction, Judges, Lease Agreements, M.R. Shah, Possession, Property Law, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 with Section 10(2)(i), Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 with Section 2(6)

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction on Subletting: A. Mahalakshmi vs. Bala Venkatram (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant sublet the property without the landlord’s consent, warranting eviction. CASE TYPE: Landlord-Tenant Dispute, Rent Control Case Name: A. Mahalakshmi vs. Bala Venkatram (D) Through LR & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 07 January 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 07

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction on Subletting: A. Mahalakshmi vs. Bala Venkatram (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Revised Income Tax Returns Post-Amalgamation: Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 230, Company Amalgamation, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 119(2)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 139(5), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 170(1), Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Allows Revised Income Tax Returns Post-Amalgamation: Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether revised income tax returns can be filed after the statutory deadline due to company amalgamation proceedings. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: M/S Dalmia Power Limited & Anr. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1,

Supreme Court Allows Revised Income Tax Returns Post-Amalgamation: Dalmia Power Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for delayed possession despite sale deed: Lanco Hills vs. Kulkarni (2019)

/ Breach of contract, Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Contract Law, Delayed Possession, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Force Majeure, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Possession of Property, Property Law, Sale Deed

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Delayed Possession Despite Sale Deed: Lanco Hills vs. Kulkarni (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a builder is liable to pay compensation for delayed possession of an apartment even after a sale deed has been executed stating that possession has been handed over. CASE TYPE: Consumer Case Name: M/s Lanco Hills Technology

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for delayed possession despite sale deed: Lanco Hills vs. Kulkarni (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top