LawLoveLegal

Landmark Ruling on Real Estate Disputes In a significant ruling aimed at protecting homebuyers, the Supreme Court of India has held that real estate developers must compensate buyers at the same punitive rate of interest they themselves impose on buyers for payment delays. This decision seeks to establish parity and fairness in the highly contested builder-buyer relationship. The ruling came from a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih , who directed M/s Business Park Town Planners Ltd to refund the principal amount to the buyer with 18% interest per annum , instead of the 9% interest awarded earlier by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Case Background: A 12-Year Struggle for Justice The dispute began in 2006 , when homebuyer Rajnesh Sharma booked a plot in the builder’s Park Land project in Haryana for ₹36.03 lakh. By 2011, Sharma had already paid over ₹28 lakh, but possession of the property was not handed over. Instead, the builder offere...

Supreme Court Directs Special PMLA Court to Withhold Judgment Until Charges Are Framed in CBI Case In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India directed a  Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to refrain from passing a final judgment in a money laundering case until charges are framed in a related Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) offence. This decision emphasizes the importance of coordination between parallel proceedings under the PMLA and the CBI’s investigation into predicate offences. The Bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi ** and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma , delivered the ruling on Tuesday, stating that although the PMLA trial may continue in accordance with the law, the Special Court must withhold its judgment until the charges are framed in the CBI’s predicate offence case. Background of the Case The case in question involves a Hong Kong-based company director **, implicated in a large-scale financial fraud involving Pun...

Supreme Court: Benchmark Disability Not a Disqualification for Admission to Courses In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that the mere existence of a benchmark disability does not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for admission to the applied course. This ruling came to the aid of a speech and language disability candidate seeking admission to a medical course. The judgement reinforces the rights of persons with disabilities and upholds the principles of fairness and equality under the law. Bench Clarifies Its Position The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B R Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K V Viswanathan. This ruling was part of a detailed judgement associated with the earlier order passed on September 18, 2024. The Supreme Court had directed a seat to be reserved for the petitioner, who was ultimately granted admission to a medical course based on the report from Maulana Azad Medical College. The Case of Omkar Ramchandr...

Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Guidelines  on Child Safety and Security in Schools Across  States and Union Territories In a significant ruling on child safety , the Supreme Court of India  has directed all states and union territories to implement the Centre’s guidelines  on the safety and security of children in schools. The court also tasked the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) with coordinating and monitoring the implementation of these guidelines. Supreme Court’s Direction on Child Safety A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the Centre had already notified the guidelines on child safety and directed the union government  to ensure that copies of the guidelines are sent to chief secretaries or their equivalent officers in each state and union territory.  The NCPCR  was entrusted with coordinating with state governments and seeking status reports on the implementation of ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in the Dispute Over Trust Property of Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple On September 13, 2024 , the Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal in Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 , involving the dispute over the ownership and title of a trust property related to the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple . The appeal, filed by Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple , challenged the judgment passed by the Madras High Court on October 26, 2017 , which had upheld the decision that the disputed property was trust property and not under the absolute ownership of the appellant. Background of the Case The case revolves around the ownership of an immovable property adjacent to the Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple (referred to as the "suit property"). This property, along with the temple, was originally owned by Rai Raja Eswardoss Diawanth Bahadur , whose son and grandson, T. Lakshmidoss and T. Venkataprasad , were declared insolvents by the Madras High Court in 1914 . A...

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Kejriwal in  Delhi Excise Policy Case, Upholds Legality of Arrest In a recent Supreme Court decision, the appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3816 and 3817 of 2024 involving Arvind Kejriwal versus the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were addressed. These appeals arise from a Special Leave Petition challenging Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI in relation to alleged irregularities and conspiracy surrounding the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. Background of the Case 1. FIR and Allegations: The CBI filed an FIR on 17 August 2022, accusing officials in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) of engaging in conspiracy and corruption while implementing the Excise Policy 2021-2022. This policy allegedly involved undue benefits to certain liquor wholesalers and retailers. Though Kejriwal’s name was not initially mentioned in the FIR, his arrest came after further investigation by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).   ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee’s Appeals Against ED Summons Under PMLA In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals filed by Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued to them by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appellants had sought relief from the ED's summons to appear in New Delhi, arguing for a venue closer to their hometown, Kolkata, and questioned the legal grounds for their summons under the PMLA. Background of the Case The case originated with an FIR registered by the CBI regarding illegal coal mining activities in the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). The investigation revealed significant instances of money laundering involving illegal coal extraction and transportation, amounting to approximately Rs. 1300 crore. This led to the ED's involvement, which resulted in the issuance of summons to...