LawLoveLegal

1. Background of the Dispute: Mundra Grazing Land Allotment The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Gujarat government order reclaiming 108 hectares of grazing land allotted to Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ) in Mundra, Gujarat. The dispute traces back to 2005 , when the Gujarat Revenue Department and the Collector allotted approximately 231 acres of grazing land in Navinal village, Kutch district , to private entities associated with the Mundra Port project. In 2011 , a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Gujarat High Court challenging the land allotment, alleging improper diversion of grazing land and environmental concerns such as dredging, filling of creeks, and destruction of mangroves. 2. Supreme Court Judgment: Violation of Natural Justice A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the Gujarat government’s July 4, 2024 order resuming 108 hectares of land was passed without granting Adani Ports an op...

Case Title and Bench The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, held that the financial dominance of a husband over his estranged wife, in the context of a strained marital relationship, does not by itself amount to cruelty so as to attract prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Introduction In a significant ruling reinforcing the primacy of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Delhi High Court has restrained the Central Government from demolishing structures in and around the historic Ajmer Sharif Dargah without giving affected individuals an opportunity to be heard. The order came while hearing a petition challenging a November 22, 2025 notice issued by the Centre-appointed Nazim directing removal of alleged encroachments inside the Dargah premises. The court categorically observed that the Centre “cannot just go with a bulldozer and raze everything” without following due process. This judgment adds to the growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary demolitions and underscores the constitutional obligation to ensure fairness even in matters involving encroachments and security considerations. “YOU JUST CAN’T GO WITH A BULLDOZER…” – COURT’S STRONG OBSERVATION Judicial Concern Over Vague Notice Justice Sachin Datta remarked that the November 22 no...

  Background: RCB Under Fire for Post-Win Chaos The Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has approached the Karnataka High Court to challenge remarks made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that held the team prima facie responsible for the stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, which claimed 11 lives after the team’s IPL title victory on June 4, 2025 . CAT’s Observations and Findings In a 29-page order , a CAT bench comprising Justice B.K. Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra ruled that RCB and its event management partner, DNA Entertainment , had not obtained any permission for organising the victory parade and celebrations after the team's historic maiden title win. CAT stated that RCB’s sudden social media announcements led to an uncontrollable crowd surge, reportedly drawing between 3 to 5 lakh people to a venue with a capacity of just 35,000 . According to CAT: RCB “created a nuisance” by announcing...