Property Law

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute: Saketa Vaksana LLP vs. Kaukutla Sarala (2019)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Rule 2, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Krishna Murari, Property Law, Specific Performance, Temporary Injunction, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute: Saketa Vaksana LLP vs. Kaukutla Sarala (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a temporary injunction should be granted in a property dispute where possession and payment of consideration are contested. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Saketa Vaksana LLP & Anr. vs. Kaukutla Sarala […]

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Temporary Injunction in Property Dispute: Saketa Vaksana LLP vs. Kaukutla Sarala (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019)

/ Customary Law, Evidence Act, 1872, Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 48, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 5(ii), Impartible Estates, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Primogeniture, Princely States, Property Law, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether perpetual leasehold rights of a property, part of a former princely state, should be considered coparcenary property or an impartible estate governed by primogeniture. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Trijugi Narain (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and

Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Intervenes in Rent Dispute: Espire Infolabs vs. Sadhana Foundation (2019)

/ Deepak Gupta, Eviction Petition, Judges, Lease Agreement, Provisional Rent, Rent Control Laws, S. Abdul Nazeer, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 105

Supreme Court Intervenes in Rent Dispute: Espire Infolabs vs. Sadhana Foundation (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of provisional rent and the validity of a subsequent lease agreement in a rent dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil (Rent Dispute) Case Name: M/S Espire Infolabs Pvt Ltd vs. Sadhana Foundation Judgment Date: December 09, 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Intervenes in Rent Dispute: Espire Infolabs vs. Sadhana Foundation (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Religious Premises Act: Tenants of Religious Institutions Not Entitled to Rent Act Protection (4 December 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Eviction, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Krishna Murari, N. V. Ramana, Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997, Religious Premises, Rent Control, Sanjiv Khanna, Unauthorised Occupation

Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Religious Premises Act: Tenants of Religious Institutions Not Entitled to Rent Act Protection (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether tenants of religious institutions are entitled to protection under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, or if they can be treated differently under a separate law. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Landlord

Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Religious Premises Act: Tenants of Religious Institutions Not Entitled to Rent Act Protection (4 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Permissive Possession, Rejects Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Jit Ram vs. Satnam Singh (2019)

/ Adverse Possession, Civil Law, Judges, Permissive Possession, Permissive Possession, Property Law, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Permissive Possession, Rejects Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Jit Ram vs. Satnam Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person who has been in permissive possession of a property can claim adverse possession. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Jit Ram (deceased) through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh [Judgment Date]: 28 November

Supreme Court Upholds Permissive Possession, Rejects Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Jit Ram vs. Satnam Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in Family Property Dispute: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram (25 November 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 23, Judges, M. R. Shah, Property Dispute

Supreme Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in Family Property Dispute: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a settlement agreement reached through mediation, encompassing properties beyond the original suit’s scope, is binding and enforceable. CASE TYPE: Contempt Jurisdiction/Civil Case Name: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram & Ors. Judgment Date: 25 November 2019 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in Family Property Dispute: Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram (25 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (22 November 2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Coparcenary Property, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hindu Law, Hindu Law with Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Judges, Partition of Property, Property Law, Property Rights, Transfer of Property

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The case addresses the devolution of ancestral property under Hindu law, specifically concerning the rights of a granddaughter whose father predeceased his grandfather, in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. CASE TYPE: Civil

Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Grandson over Granddaughter in Ancestral Property Dispute: Radha Bai vs. Ram Narayan (22 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fresh consideration of additional lease premium: CIDCO vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Additional Lease Premium, Bonafide Purchaser, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Lease Agreement, New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975, Property Law, R. Banumathi, Regulation 6, New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975, Regulation 7, New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975

Supreme Court directs fresh consideration of additional lease premium: CIDCO vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. (2019) Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1314 Judges: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. Can a statutory body demand additional lease premium without proper procedure and consideration of factual details? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court directs fresh consideration of additional lease premium: CIDCO vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Procedure, Consent Decree, Impounding of Documents, Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with Section 35, Interim Orders, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Specific Performance, Stamp Duty

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019) Date of the Judgment: October 22, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1170 Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a court order the impounding of a document for insufficient stamp duty even after a decree based

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on impounding unstamped agreement: Terai Tea Company vs. Kumkum Mittal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Lessor’s Right to Forfeit Lease in Liquidation Case: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund vs. West Bengal Small Ind. Development Corporation Ltd. (21 October 2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Company Law, Company Law with Section 535, Judges, Lease Agreements, Liquidation, Mortgage Rights, Property Law, S. Ravindra Bhat, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Lessor’s Right to Forfeit Lease in Liquidation Case: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund vs. West Bengal Small Ind. Development Corporation Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a mortgagee of leasehold rights can claim superior rights over the lessor when the lease has been validly terminated due to the lessee’s breach of lease conditions. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Lessor’s Right to Forfeit Lease in Liquidation Case: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund vs. West Bengal Small Ind. Development Corporation Ltd. (21 October 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Property Law, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 with Section 14, Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 with Section 7

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases of property damage. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Damage Case Name: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam and

Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Property Damage Cases: M. Hariharasudhan vs. R. Karmegam (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the deposit requirement for pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act: Barasat Eye Hospital vs. Kaustabh Mondal (2019)

/ Judges, K.M. Joseph, Pre-emption Rights, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 with Section 8, West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 with Section 9

Supreme Court Clarifies Pre-emption Rights under West Bengal Land Reforms Act: Barasat Eye Hospital vs. Kaustabh Mondal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person seeking to exercise the right of pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 must deposit the full sale consideration amount as stated in the sale deed, or if a partial

Supreme Court clarifies the deposit requirement for pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act: Barasat Eye Hospital vs. Kaustabh Mondal (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top