Inequitable To Undo Sale Executed Pursuant To Specific Performance Decree Decades Ago By Ordering Refund: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that once a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell has culminated in execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession, the completed transaction cannot be undone by substituting it with an enhanced monetary refund merely to "settle equities".A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation while restoring a 1979 Trial Court decree for specific performance concerning around five bighas of agricultural land near...

Delhi High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Top Cops Over Alleged Failure To Comply With Order For Departmental Inquiry Against IO

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its directions to initiate and conclude a departmental inquiry against a police officer who had failed to complete investigation in an FIR registered in 2016.Justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice on the contempt petition filed against Anurag Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police and Rakesh...

Property Sold In Auction Cannot By Itself Be Ground To Evict Existing Tenants: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the sale of a property by the Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC) cannot, by itself, be a ground to evict tenants occupying the premises, observing that eviction can only be sought in accordance with the grounds prescribed under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen was hearing...

CWC Has No Jurisdiction Over Child Who Is Not 'Orphan' Or 'Abandoned' Even If Adoption Procedure Was Not Followed: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) does not have the power to deal with a child who is neither an orphan nor abandoned. The Court observed that though due procedure was not followed in the adoption of the child, the CWC's order was not justified, and granted custody of the child back to the adoptive parents.A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke...

O 7 Rule 11 CPC | Admissibility Of Document Cannot Be Decided While Considering Rejection Of Plaint : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently held that the question of admissibility of a document relied upon by a plaintiff is a matter to be adjudicated at the trial, and cannot be considered while seeking rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while allowing an appeal filed...

S. 92 CPC | Civil Court Cannot Pass Interim Orders While Leave Application Is Pending Against Public Trust: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 18) held that a Civil Court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders while an application seeking leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is pending. Since, obtaining a prior leave of the court is mandatory to file a representative suit under Section 92 CPC when it is filed by individuals, a bench...

Patna High Court Upholds 10-Year Blacklisting Of Contractor For False Work Experience Certificate

The Patna High Court has held that a personal hearing is not necessary where the contractor has been given an opportunity to respond through a show cause notice and his written explanation has been considered before passing the blacklisting order.A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma was hearing a petition filed by a contractor challenging...

State Can't Invoke 3-Month Deadline After Wrongfully Rejecting Landowners' Timely Pleas For Enhanced Compensation: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the three-month deadline for seeking re-determination of land acquisition compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot defeat the claims of landowners whose timely applications for a court reference for compensation enhancement under Section 18 were wrongly rejected. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 153]Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,...

Agreement To Sell With Landlord Doesn't By Itself End Tenancy Or Turn Tenant's Possession Into Part Performance: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a tenant enters into an agreement to purchase the tenanted property from his landlord, the mere execution of the agreement does not bring the tenancy to an end, nor does it make the tenant's possession one in part performance of the agreement under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It held that the tenant must prove that the...

Lawyer Cannot Swear Affidavit On Behalf Of Client Unless Facts Are Within Personal Knowledge: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a lawyer for the plaintiff cannot file an affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff seeking production of documents. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 514]Justice Easwaran S delivered the judgement in an original petition. The case arose when the counsel appearing for the plaintiff produced certain documents on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for partition. The...

Allahabad High Court Allows Women Lawyers Nominated After Bar Association Polls To Continue, Directs Bye-Law Amendment For 30% Representation

The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash the elections to the executive body of the Civil Bar Association, Bulandshahr, in which no woman lawyer was elected as an office bearer, holding that the requirement of 30% representation for women stood fulfilled by the nomination of four women advocates to the body within four days of the poll.The public interest litigation, filed by an...

UP Awas Vikas Act Primarily For Housing Development, Land Acquisition Only Incidental; No Repugnancy With 2013 Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 is not repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It held that the Adhiniyam is, in pith and substance, referable to Entries 5 and 18 of the State List and not to Entry 42 of the Concurrent List, since its dominant purpose...