Real Estate and Law : Joint Purchase of Property and Legal Issues

Real Estate and Law : Joint Purchase of Property and Legal Issues

The decision of Kulwant Singh v. Gurdeep Singh [2018] GCtR 6661 (Delhi) has explained legal issues on property disputes.

The case was about Two plots.  There was joint purchase by 2 brothers B1 SS and B2 MS.  MS is father of P.  SS is father of D. 

Civil Suit was filed by son of MS for partition which was filed by P.

D argued on oral partition. D also argued on Adverse possession.

It was held that there is no proof that B1 constructed property on share of B1.  Best proof of partition is parties acting on partition and mutation in their names. 

D said that they are in possession of their share ; D said no rent was received by MS. However, P was entitled to relief of partition. In this case, P succeeded in partition and D's claim of oral partition and of larger share was rejected.

Joint Property, Coparcenary and Legal Issues on Property Disputes

Joint Property, Coparcenary and Legal Issues on Property Disputes

The law on property disputes was discussed in Pooja Wasal v. Ramesh Grover [2025] GCtR 1948 (Delhi). 

What is Joint Hindu Family ?

A joint Hindu family, as envisaged under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, constitutes a legal entity formed by all lineal male descendants of a common ancestor, together with their respective spouses and unmarried daughters. The continuity of such a family is legally presumed until severance of status is distinctly established. Severance necessitates demonstrable intent coupled with definitive partition, while mere divergence in rituals or residence is insufficient to disrupt the legal presumption of jointness.

"Coparcenary" : A Narrow Concept

The narrower body within this umbrella of Joint family property is the Hindu coparcenary, traditionally confined to a propositus and three male lineal descendants. The ownership within the coparcenary is collective and by birth, known as unobstructed heritage. Each coparcener acquires a fluctuating, undefined interest in the whole of the coparcenary property, which enlarges or contracts by subsequent births or deaths. Until partition, the interest remains indeterminate. A single surviving coparcener holds the estate as separate property, but a fresh coparcenary is created upon the birth of a son. The management of joint property is done by the Karta, usually the eldest coparcener, who acts as manager of the family estate, clothed with fiduciary responsibility. The Karta is empowered to represent the family, incur debts, and alienate property only for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate.

Operation of S.6 of HSA, 1956

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, as originally enacted, dealt with the devolution of interest in the coparcenary property of a male Hindu who was a member of the Hindu coparcenary. Under the said Section, when a male Hindu, who was a coparcener in a Hindu joint family, died intestate, his undivided interest in the coparcenary property would not devolve by succession, but instead by survivorship.

Conferral of coparcenary rights upon daughters is by virtue of birth and is not contingent upon the existence of the father on the date of commencement of the amendment. The Court observed that the amendment is retroactive in application with respect to the rights it recognizes, and daughters are entitled to a share in the coparcenary property.

Ancestral Property and Joint Family Property

Ancestral property remains a separate property of the coparcener until the birth of a son, after which it becomes a joint family property. A sole surviving coparcener has full rights to sell or alienate the property as his own, but once a son is born, the property transforms into coparcenary property, restricting absolute alienation. The Court held that so long, on partition, an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property, and the son would acquire an interest in that and become a coparcener. 

Which Court Can entertain Suits for Property ? Supreme Court Clarifies the Maze of Law

Which Court Can entertain Suits for Property ? Supreme Court Clarifies the Maze of Law

It has been held that S. 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recognizes a well established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal [2005] GCtR 6551 (SC)

Complaints under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in Real Estate Sector : Supreme Court Examines Finer Legal Nuances

Complaints under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in Real Estate Sector : Supreme Court Examines Finer Legal Nuances

In an interesting Judgment where consumer issues arose in real estate sector, Supreme Court has discussed the law on Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Consumer alleged that there was delay in handing over possession by the builder. Complaint was filed jointly by 91 consumers of the real estate project. 

It was found that since project was in multiple blocks so when buyers of other blocks have not joined in complaint so complaint in representative capacity for those persons was found non-maintainable. While joint complaint in this case was permitted but complaint filed in representative capacity was not permitted due to certain reasons ; however, the complaint filed in representative capacity was allowed to be continued in a complaint of joint nature.

S.35 of CPA, 2019 and Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure

Section 35(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 enables one or more consumers, where there are   numerous   consumers   having  the  same   interest,   with   the permission of the District Commission, to file a complaint, on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested. It is needless to point out that the sine qua non for invoking Section 35(1)(c) is that all consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the provision is invoked, should have the same interest. Interestingly, Section 35(1) (c) uses the disjunction “or” in between two sets of words, namely, (i)  “on behalf of”; and  (ii)  “for the benefit of”. Therefore, a complaint filed under Section 35(1)(c) could either be “on behalf of” or “for the benefit of” all consumers having the same interest.

Section 38(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 makes the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to cases where the complainant is a   consumer   referred   to   in   Section   2(5)(v),   which   defines   a ‘complainant’ to  mean one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest.

"Sameness of Interest" and Its Impact

Since   “sameness   of   interest”   is   the   pre­requisite   for   an application under Order I Rule 8 read with Section 35(1)(c) of the  Consumer   Protection   Act,   2019,   it   was   necessary   for  the respondents   to   include   in   the   consumer   complaint,   sufficient averments   that   would   show   sameness   of   interest.

Applying the law to this case it was held that in this case, it is not clear from the consumer complaint as to how  (i)  those who have accepted the compensation under protest; (ii) those who accepted without protest; and (iii) those who refused to accept the compensation, have the sameness of interest. It was also held that for allowing an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act or Section 35(1)(c) of the 2019 Act,   the   pleadings   and   the   reliefs   are   to   be  considered.

There is no scope for the contention that wherever there are more consumers than one, they must only take recourse to Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 even if the complaint is not on behalf of or for the benefit of, all the consumers interested in the matter. There may be cases where only “a few consumers” and not “numerous consumers” have the same interest.  There is nothing in the Act to prohibit these few consumers from joining together and filing a joint complaint. A joint complaint stands in contrast to a complaint filed in a representative capacity.  For   attracting   the   provisions   of   Section 35(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the complaint filed by one or more consumers should be on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers having same interest. It does not mean that where there are only very few consumers having the same   interest,  they   cannot   even   join   together   and   file   a  single complaint,  but   should   take   recourse   only   to   independent   and separate complaints.

The proper way of interpreting Section 35(1) read with section 2(5), would be to say that a complaint may be filed: (i) by a single consumer;  (ii)  by a recognised consumer Association; (iii) by one or more consumers jointly, seeking the redressal of their own grievances without representing other consumers who may or may not have the same interest; (iv) by one or more consumers on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers;  and  (v)  the Central Government, Central Authority or State Authority.

Case reference is Brigade Enterprises Ltd v. Anil Kumar Virmani [2021] GCtR 2900 (SC).

Property Transactions and Legal Ramifications : Supreme Court Answers in Its Latest Judgment

Property Transactions and Legal Ramifications : Supreme Court Answers in Its Latest Judgment

In the recent case of Harish Kumar v. Amar Nath [2025] GCtR 1391 (SC) a case in respect of property was filed. Here, suit for specific performance for agreement for sale was filed. It was held that to succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove (a) the existence of a valid agreement of sale, (b) that the defendant committed breach of contract; and (c) that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations in terms of the contract.

In this case, A alleged that B after receipt of payment, B did not turned up for registration of sale deed. B denied having signed on agreement for sale. When suit was filed by A, it was dismissed by Trial Court. First appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by A. But, HC allowed the second appeal filed by A. Said decision of HC was set aside by Supreme Court. 

It was held that there is a distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, and that onus of proof has greater force when the issue is which party is to begin forwarding evidence in support of a proposition. Ultimately, specific performance of agreement of sale was found unsuccessful. 

It was concluded that party had failed to valid suit agreement. It is interesting to note that the time lag in execution of sale deed and the agreement for sale was taken note of by appellate Court (see page nos. 4 &5).

Property Sale, Housing Loans and The Fundamentals of Law

Property Sale, Housing Loans and The Fundamentals of Law

It has been explained in Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan RERA [2021] GCtR 3445 (Jaipur, Rajasthan) that in the event of direct conflict between the two central statutes giving overriding effect to the Act, ordinarily the subsequent legislation would prevail. As per S.11 of R E(R&D) Act, 2016 after a promoter executes an agreement for sale for any apartment, plot or building he shall not mortgage or create a charge on such apartment, plot or building and if any such mortgage or charge is made or created then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it shall not affect the right and interest of the allottee who has taken or agreed to take apartment, plot or building, as the case may be. RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in S. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Supreme Court : 10 Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1

Supreme Court : Ten (10) Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1

In Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases [2024] GCtR 1344 (SC), it has been held that services provided by Advocates are not covered under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. "Services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in the section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019."

In the case of Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka [2024] GCtR 1352 (SC), it has been held that the provision of Section 14(3) of the  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, providing for the period of 3 months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. The same is held to be directory.

In Bhikchand v. Shamabai Dhanaraj Gugale [2024] GCtR 1350 (SC) it was reiterated that "if at a court auction sale in execution of a decree, the properties are purchased by a bona fide purchaser who is a stranger to the court proceedings, the sale in his favour is protected and he cannot be asked to restitute the property to the judgment debtor if the decree is set aside. The policy which prompts the extension of protection to the strangers who purchase at court auctions is based on a need to ensure that proper price is fetched at a court auction. The special protection afforded to a stranger who purchases at an execution sale is not extended to an assignee of the decree-holder auction purchaser. Persons who purchase at a court auction who are strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not in any way connected with the decree. The reasons which prompt the courts to protect strangers who purchase at court auction sales also do not apply to assignees or purchasers from a decree-holder auction purchaser." It was also explained that "the execution of a decree by sale of the entire immovable property of the judgment debtor is not to penalise him but the same is provided to grant relief to the decree holder and to confer him the fruits of litigation."

In M/s Embio Ltd v. DGFT [2024] GCtR 1336 (SC) it was held that Section 11 (2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is a penal provision. It must be strictly construed.

In Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen [2024] GCtR 1335 (SC) issue arose was what is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?  [page 2, para 2] or does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether? [page 2, para 2]. It has been concluded that the "line of precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled." [page 12, para 17]

In Tapas Guha v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 1329 (SC) it was held that "while acknowledging the importance of infrastructure development, it is paramount that such projects proceed in harmony with environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. The requirement for Environmental Clearance serves as a crucial safeguard against unchecked exploitation of natural resources and helps uphold the principles of sustainable development- which safeguards the interests of both present and future generations."

In Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police [2024] GCtR 1284 (SC) on the issue of Minor Relatives and Inclusion in History Sheet, it has been commented while dealing with Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by Delhi Police Commissioner that "amended Standing Order that in the column “relations and connections”, it has been decided that identities of only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history sheeter/bad character shelter, when the offender is running/wanted by the police and it shall also include names of his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. The amended Standing Order emphatically says that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that such minor, has or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender." Ultimately, the criminal appeal filed by Amanatuallah Khan was disposed of modifying the decision of Hon'ble Delhi HC.

In the case of Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh [2024] GCtR 1273 (SC) while dealing with issue of Lis Pendens and equity, it was held that "the object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation. The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums. The principle is based on equity and good conscience." There can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in its strict sense in certain cases, then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.

In the case of Shankar v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1267 (SC) on the issue of S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it was explained that "the degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 is well settled. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. The degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity."

In the case of Sharif Ahmed v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1232 (SC), the important issue of non bailable warrants and completion of chargesheet was clarified. It was held that while there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of nonbailable warrants, it can be observed that non bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence.

You can download full text (PDF) Copies of all these judgments free of cost from Linkedin Page of GCtR Legal Updates. 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship. 

Some Interesting Decisions

Some Interesting Decisions 

State of Maharashtra v Ravindranath Kautik Mohite [2016] GCtR 4405 (Bombay) : If    delay    is   caused on account of  non processing of the file then the Applicant is entitled to get interest on the delayed pension.

M/s.Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Private Limited v M/s.Clean Coats Private Limited [2016] GCtR 4407 (Bombay) : Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 clearly indicates that once the conciliation initiated under section 18(2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration and for such dispute resolution, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such disputes as if the arbitration was pursuant to the arbitration agreement referred to in section 7(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 

Pradeep Sakharam Mayekar v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4408 (Bombay) :Duty to act in a fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and objective manner is a facet of the Rule of Law in a constitutional democracy like ours.  The action that is arbitrary has no place in a polity governed by Rule of Law apart from being offensive to the equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

State of Maharashtra v Vijay Ghogre [2016] GCtR 4406 (Bombay) : There is no total bar for the State to use and utilise it's enabling power to provide Reservation to all the similarly placed class/group.

Kandarpa Pathak v Mono Kanta Baruah [2016] GCtR 3358 (Gauhati) : A bare reading of Order XIX Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 leaves no manner of doubt that the said provision can be invoked when the Court requires any particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit and such evidence is tendered by way of affidavit, than the Court can order, at the instance of either party, the presence of the deponent for cross examination. What, therefore, follows is that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Order XIX Rule 2, there must be a proceeding where any fact or facts are being sought to be proved by affidavit and in deference to the said purpose, evidence in given by either party, by affidavit.

Mohammad Munaf Mohammad Hanif Bedre v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4409 (Bombay) : Recourse to affinity test can be taken if the other documentary evidence, which was conclusive in nature was not available.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.

Supreme Court Judgments : 1-12 January 2024

 Supreme Court Judgments : 1-12 January 2024

Here are some of the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced between 1-12 January 2024. 

Vishal Tiwari v Union of India [2024] GCtR 17 (SC) - Adani's issue and role of SEBI discussed.

S.Rajaseekaran v Union of India [2024] GCtR 170 (SC) - Duty of Police in context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 highlighted.

DBS Bank Ltd v Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd [2024] GCtR 26 (SC) - Issue related to IBC, 2016 referred to Larger Bench.

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. [2024] GCtR 16 (SC) - Personal appearance of government officers and guidelines issued.

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd v Jaya Wadhwani [2024] GCtR 23 (SC) - In context of life insurance policy, it was held that the date of proposal cannot be treated to be the date of policy until and unless on the date of proposal, initial deposit as also the issuance of policy happens on the same date where, for example, the premium is paid in cash then, immediately, the policy could be issued.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.

10 Judgments of Supreme Court that Everyone Should Know

 10 Judgments of Supreme Court that Everyone Should Know

There are some decisions which everyone should know. 

List is as follows : - 

1. Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC) - If the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith.
2. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] GCtR 4065 (SC) - Articles dealing with different fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution of India do not represent entirely separate streams of rights which do not mingle at many points. They are all parts of an integrated scheme in the Constitution.
3. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI [2013] GCtR 338 (SC) - Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
4. CIT v Chhabil Dass Aggarwal [2013] GCtR 751 (SC) - High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
5. United Bank of India v Satyawati Tandon [2010] GCtR 1357 (SC) - High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions.
6. Associate Builders v DDA [2014] GCtR 1661 (SC) - It is important to note that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to replace the 1940 Arbitration Act in order to provide for an arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of arbitration; also to provide that the tribunal gives reasons for an arbitral award; to ensure that the tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction; and to minimize the supervisory roles of courts in the arbitral process.
7. Rajnesh v Neha [2020] GCtR 304 (SC) - The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court, as a mandatory requirement.
8. Sarla Verma v DTC [2009] GCtR 1241 (SC) - Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents.
9. NICL v Pranay Sethi [2017] GCtR 836 (SC) - In cases for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. 
10. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1984] GCtR 4269 (SC) - Five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.  

110 Landmark Judgments of Supreme Court of 2023 ; Part 4

110 Landmark Judgments of Supreme Court of 2023 ; Part 4

There are many interesting judgments which were pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023. One can download full copy of judgment Free of cost from the website www.sci.gov.in.

The list [Part 4] is as follows :  

1. Boby v State of Kerala [2023] GCtR 2157 (SC).

2. Fisherman Care v Govt of India [2023] GCtR 237 (SC).

3. Prakash Nayi @ Sen v State of Goa [2023] GCtR 303 (SC). 

4. Stalin @ Satalin Samuvel v State [2023] GCtR 2158 (SC). 

5. Deepak Gaba v State of UP [2023] GCtR 17 (SC). 

6. Ex-Const Mukesh Kumar Raigar v Union of India [2023] GCtR 139 (SC).

7. Hirenkumar Chandulal Aghara v SBI [2023] GCtR 2159 (SC).

8. Pankaj Dhar Dubey v Union of India [2023] GCtR 2160 (SC). 

9. Sidrathul Munthana v Tharik [2023] GCtR 2161 (SC). 

10. Dalbir Singh v State of Punjab [2023] GCtR 2162 (SC). 

Previous List is shared again for more clarity and convenience : - 

1. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd v Excise and Taxation Officer [2023] GCtR 2136 (SC)
2. SEBI v V. Shankar [2023] GCtR 2137 (SC)
3. Aman Semi Conductors (Pvt) Ltd v HSIDC [2023] GCtR 2138 (SC)
4. Rana Ayyub v Directorate of Enforcement [2023] GCtR 332 (SC)
5. C. Yamini v High Court for State of AP [2023] GCtR 2139 (SC)
6. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v Narimetla Vamshi [2023] GCtR 2140 (SC)
7. Ashutosh Sanyasi v State of MP [2023] GCtR 2141 (SC)
8. Sahil Raj v The State of Tamil Nadu [2023] GCtR 2142 (SC)
9. UT of J&K & Anr v Jugal Kishore Sharma & Ors [2023] GCtR 2143 (SC)
10. Neha v State of Maharashtra [2023] GCtR 2144 (SC).
11. AMD Industries v Commissioner of Trade Tax [2023] GCtR 52 (SC).
12. Shekhar Resorts Ltd v Union of India [2023] GCtR 41 (SC)
13. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v Union of India [2023] GCtR 114 (SC)
14. Sunil Saini v State of Haryana [2023] GCtR 2133 (SC)
15. Alpine Housing Dev. Corpn. Ltd v Ashok S. Dhariwal [2023] GCtR 190 (SC)
16. John Anthonisamy @ John v State [2023] GCtR 191 (SC)
17. K.L. Suneja v Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga [2023] GCtR 2134 (SC)
18. Rajaram v Maruthachalam [2023] GCtR 176 (SC) 
19. M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt Ltd v Prudent ARC Limited & Others [2023] GCtR 2135 (SC) 
20. IFB Agro Industries Ltd v SICGIL India Ltd & Ors [2023] GCtR 31 (SC) 
21. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd v R.K. Mohatta Family Trust [2023] GCtR 2145 (SC)
22. State of Karnataka v Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd [2023] GCtR 2146 (SC).
23. Super Diamond Tools v K. Mohan Rao [2023] GCtR 2147 (SC). 
24. State of Haryana v Satpal [2023] GCtR 514 (SC).
25. Anoop Baranwal v Union of India [2023] GCtR 2148 (SC).
26. State Bank of India v Rajesh Agarwal [2023] GCtR 688 (SC). 
27. Ankit Kumar Singh v State of MP [2023] GCtR 2149 (SC).
28. Farmax India Ltd v SEBI [2023] GCtR 2150 (SC).
29. Vipulkumar Ramanbhai Makwana v State of Gujarat [2023] GCtR 2151 (SC). 
30. Greater Mohali Area Dev. Authority v Surinder Kaur [2023] GCtR 2152 (SC).  

 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.