ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #LegalView

  • Constitutional Validity of RERA Upheld by the Bombay High Court

    Constitutional Validity of RERA Upheld by the Bombay High Court

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 25.08.2026

    Constitutional Validity of RERA Upheld by the Bombay High Court

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .  

    The Bombay High Court’s decision in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. is a pivotal ruling on the constitutional validity of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, including its background, legal issues, arguments, judgment, and its implications for real estate and housing regulation in India.

    Background

    The case arose from a batch of writ petitions filed by real estate developers and other stakeholders challenging several provisions of RERA and the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. The petitioners contended that certain provisions of RERA were unconstitutional, particularly as they applied to ongoing projects that had not received completion certificates by the time RERA came into force.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Retrospective/Retroactive Application: Whether RERA’s provisions, especially those requiring registration of ongoing projects, amounted to retrospective or retroactive legislation affecting vested rights.
    2. Reasonableness and Arbitrariness: Whether the restrictions imposed by RERA on promoters were unreasonable or arbitrary, violating Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession), and 20 (protection against ex post facto laws) of the Constitution.
    3. Judicial Member Requirement: Whether the composition of the RERA Authority and Appellate Tribunal required the presence of judicial members.
    4. Penal and Compensatory Provisions: Whether the penalties and compensation mechanisms under RERA were penal in nature and applied retrospectively.

    Arguments Presented

    Petitioners (Developers and Promoters)

    • Retrospective Impact: Argued that applying RERA to ongoing projects interfered with existing contracts and imposed new obligations retroactively, which was unconstitutional.
    • Unreasonable Restrictions: Claimed that provisions like mandatory deposit of 70% of collections in a separate account, limited extension for project completion, and stringent penalties were arbitrary and did not balance the interests of promoters and allottees.
    • Lack of Judicial Members: Contended that the absence of mandatory judicial members in the Authority and Tribunal undermined the fairness of dispute resolution.

    Respondents (Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Allottees)

    • Prospective Operation: Maintained that RERA’s obligations were prospective, applying only after registration, and did not affect vested rights or completed transactions.
    • Public Interest and Consumer Protection: Emphasized that RERA was enacted to address widespread malpractices, delays, and lack of accountability in the real estate sector, protecting consumers’ interests.
    • Balanced Regulation: Asserted that RERA struck a balance between the rights of promoters and allottees, with mechanisms for both parties to seek redress.

    The Judgment

    The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions of RERA and the Maharashtra Rules, with one exception:

    1. Registration of Ongoing Projects: The Court held that requiring ongoing projects (without completion certificates) to register under RERA was not retrospective in the true sense. Promoters could declare new timelines for completion, and the law did not affect vested rights or completed contracts.
    2. Reasonableness of Restrictions: The Court found that the restrictions imposed by RERA, such as the 70% deposit rule and limited extension for project completion, were reasonable and in the public interest. These measures aimed to prevent diversion of funds and ensure timely completion.
    3. Penalties and Compensation: The Court clarified that interest and compensation provisions were compensatory, not penal, and operated prospectively. Penalties for violations applied only to acts after RERA’s commencement.
    4. Judicial Members in Tribunal: The Court struck down part of Section 46(1)(b) of RERA, which allowed members of the Indian Legal Service (with the rank of Additional Secretary) to be appointed as judicial members of the Appellate Tribunal. The Court mandated that the Tribunal must always have a majority of judicial members.

    Implications for Real Estate and Housing Regulation

    1. Strengthened Consumer Protection: The judgment reinforced RERA’s role in protecting homebuyers, ensuring transparency, accountability, and timely delivery of projects.
    2. Regulatory Certainty: By upholding most provisions, the Court provided clarity and stability for the real estate sector, encouraging compliance and professionalization.
    3. Balanced Approach: The decision recognized the need to balance the interests of promoters and allottees, allowing promoters to set new completion timelines for ongoing projects while safeguarding buyers’ rights.
    4. Judicial Oversight: The requirement for judicial members in the Appellate Tribunal enhances the fairness and credibility of dispute resolution under RERA.

    Conclusion

    The Neelkamal Realtors judgment is a landmark in Indian real estate law, affirming the constitutional validity of RERA and setting a precedent for regulatory oversight in the sector. It marks a significant step toward a more transparent, accountable, and consumer-friendly real estate market in India.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Upholds Enforceability and Referral to Arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

    Delhi High Court Upholds Enforceability and Referral to Arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 25.08.2026

    Delhi High Court Upholds Enforceability and Referral to Arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

    The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S Ambica Enterprises v. Alok Gupta provides significant clarity on the enforceability of arbitration clauses embedded within commercial invoices. This article explores the background, legal arguments, court findings, and broader implications for businesses engaging in commercial transactions in India.

    Background of the Dispute

    1. Parties Involved:
      • Petitioner: M/S Ambica Enterprises, a partnership firm trading in disposable products.
      • Respondent: Alok Gupta, proprietor of M/S Tirupati Balaji Overseas, a manufacturer and seller of disposable products.
    2. Nature of Dispute:
      • Ambica Enterprises filed a commercial suit to recover Rs. 23,09,361 plus 12% interest, alleging that the respondent supplied substandard and overpriced goods.
      • The respondent countered, claiming the petitioner refused delivery on baseless grounds, causing losses.
    3. Key Legal Move:
      • The respondent invoked Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer the dispute to arbitration based on clauses in several invoices.

    Legal Arguments Presented

    Petitioner’s Stand

    1. No Valid Arbitration Agreement:
      • Argued that the arbitration clause in the invoices did not constitute a valid agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, as the invoices were not signed by both parties.
      • Cited precedents emphasizing the need for explicit or tacit consent to arbitrate.
    2. Party Autonomy:
      • Asserted that arbitration is a party-centric process and no party should be compelled to arbitrate without clear consent.

    Respondent’s Stand

    1. Invoices as Arbitration Agreements:
      • Relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments affirming that arbitration clauses in invoices can be valid and enforceable.
      • Highlighted that the petitioner had acted upon these invoices and relied on them in their own suit.
    2. Conduct as Consent:
      • Emphasized that continuous business dealings and acceptance of invoices indicated consent to the arbitration clause.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Written Requirement vs. Signature:
      • The court clarified that while an arbitration agreement must be in writing (Section 7(3)), it need not always be signed (Section 7(4)).
      • Cited Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals to support this view.
    2. Conduct and Acceptance:
      • The court found that Ambica Enterprises had accepted and acted upon the invoices containing the arbitration clause, and had not objected to the clause until litigation began.
      • Continuous transactions and payments against such invoices demonstrated intent to be bound by the arbitration agreement.
    3. Scope of Referral Court:
      • The court reiterated that at the Section 8 stage, only a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement is required.
      • Detailed analysis of consent or intent is not necessary at this stage.
    4. Precedents Cited:
      • The court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner, noting that they were factually different or misapplied.
      • Reaffirmed that acceptance through conduct is sufficient for an arbitration agreement.

    Implications for Businesses

    1. Arbitration Clauses in Invoices Are Enforceable:
      • Businesses should be aware that arbitration clauses in invoices can bind parties, even if unsigned, provided there is evidence of acceptance and conduct indicating consent.
    2. Importance of Conduct:
      • Parties should promptly object to any terms they do not accept, as continued dealings may be interpreted as acceptance.
    3. Drafting and Communication:
      • Clearly communicate and document any objections to contractual terms, especially arbitration clauses, to avoid unintended commitments.
    4. Legal Strategy:
      • When relying on invoices for claims, be prepared for the possibility that embedded arbitration clauses may be enforced.

    Conclusion

    The Ambica Enterprises judgment reinforces the principle that arbitration agreements need not always be signed, and that conduct and acceptance play a crucial role in determining their validity. Businesses should review their invoicing practices and ensure clarity in their contractual relationships to avoid disputes over jurisdiction and dispute resolution mechanisms.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 25.08.2026

    Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has brought to light critical legal and procedural issues in criminal cases involving charges of dacoity and related offenses. The case, involving appellants Tulsi, Shyam Kumar, and Maharam Singh, centered on allegations of preparation to commit dacoity under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as possession of illegal arms under the Arms Act. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the court’s reasoning, and its broader implications for criminal jurisprudence in India.

    Background of the Case

    On August 26, 1999, the police received secret information about a planned dacoity at Roshnara Park, Delhi. Acting on this tip, a police team set up a raid and apprehended four individualsβ€”Maharam Singh, Shyam Kumar, Tulsi, and Shyam Kishoreβ€”while a fifth alleged conspirator, Raju, reportedly escaped. Weapons were recovered from the accused, and charges were framed under Sections 399/402 IPC (preparation and assembly for dacoity) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

    Key Legal Issues Raised

    1. Requirement of Minimum Five Persons for Dacoity Charges

    The defense argued that the essential ingredient for invoking Sections 399 and 402 IPCβ€”assembly of at least five personsβ€”was missing. The prosecution’s case relied on the presence of a fifth person, Raju, who was never apprehended or identified beyond the police narrative. The defense cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that less than five persons cannot be convicted for dacoity-related offenses.

    2. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence

    The court scrutinized the testimonies of key police witnesses and found inconsistencies, particularly regarding the presence and actions of the alleged fifth conspirator. The absence of independent public witnesses during the raid and recovery of weapons further weakened the prosecution’s case.

    3. Recovery of Weapons

    The defense challenged the legitimacy of the weapon recovery, suggesting the possibility of evidence being planted. The court noted the lack of independent corroboration and the questionable credibility of the official witnesses.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    • Legal Requirement Not Met: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of five or more persons, a mandatory requirement for dacoity charges under Sections 399/402 IPC, as derived from Section 391 IPC.
    • Witness Testimony Unreliable: Contradictions in police testimonies, especially regarding the role of Constable Arjun Singh and the elusive Raju, undermined the prosecution’s narrative.
    • No Independent Witnesses: The inability to secure any public witnesses in a busy public park was deemed implausible, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s version.
    • Recovery of Weapons in Doubt: The court found the recovery process lacked transparency and independent verification, making the evidence unreliable.

    Judgment and Outcome

    The Delhi High Court acquitted all appellants of the charges under Sections 399/402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court ordered the destruction of the recovered weapons and discharged the bail bonds of the accused.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Strict Adherence to Legal Requirements: The judgment reinforces the necessity of meeting all statutory ingredients, especially the minimum number of accused in dacoity cases.
    2. Importance of Credible Evidence: It highlights the need for reliable, corroborated evidence and the risks of relying solely on official witnesses without independent support.
    3. Procedural Fairness: The case underscores the importance of procedural integrity in criminal investigations and trials.

    Conclusion

    This judgment serves as a significant precedent in cases involving dacoity and related offenses, emphasizing the importance of strict legal compliance and credible evidence. It also acts as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of transparent and fair investigative practices.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Concurrent Remedies for Homebuyers: Consumer Protection Act and RERA Both Available for Delayed Possession Claims

    Supreme Court Clarifies Concurrent Remedies for Homebuyers: Consumer Protection Act and RERA Both Available for Delayed Possession Claims

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.08.2026

    Supreme Court Clarifies Concurrent Remedies for Homebuyers: Consumer Protection Act and RERA Both Available for Delayed Possession Claims

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni & Others marks a significant milestone in the protection of homebuyers’ rights, especially in the context of delayed possession and construction of residential apartments. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, its background, the legal issues involved, and the broader implications for consumers and real estate developers.

    Background: The Dispute Over Delayed Possession

    In 2011, Imperia Structures Ltd. launched a housing project called β€œThe ESFERA” in Gurgaon, Haryana. Numerous buyers, including the respondents in this case, booked apartments and entered into Builder Buyer Agreements, paying substantial amounts towards the purchase. Despite promises of possession within 42 months, the project remained incomplete for years, prompting buyers to file complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Key facts:

    1. Buyers paid up to Rs. 63,53,625 out of a total price of Rs. 76,43,000 for their apartments.
    2. The project was not completed even after four years, with the site appearing abandoned.
    3. The buyers sought a refund with interest and compensation for the delay.

    Legal Issues and Arguments

    1. Jurisdiction and Definition of Consumer

    Imperia Structures argued that the buyers were not β€œconsumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, claiming the apartments were booked for investment. The Supreme Court, however, upheld that the buyers were indeed consumers, as they had purchased only one apartment each for self-use, often with home loans or retirement funds.

    2. Effect of RERA (Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016)

    The developer contended that after the enactment of RERA and the project’s registration under it, all disputes should be addressed exclusively by RERA authorities. The Court clarified that:

    • Remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional to those under RERA.
    • Section 79 of RERA bars civil court jurisdiction but does not bar consumer forums from entertaining complaints.
    • Section 88 of RERA explicitly states its provisions are in addition to other laws.

    3. Delay and Force Majeure

    The developer cited reasons such as demonetization and labor shortages as force majeure events. The Court found no evidence to support these claims and held that such reasons did not justify the delay.

    Relief Granted by the Courts

    The NCDRC directed Imperia Structures to:

    • Refund the amounts deposited by each complainant with simple interest at 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit.
    • Pay Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs to each complainant.
    • Comply within four weeks, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12% per annum.

    The Supreme Court affirmed these directions and dismissed the appeals by Imperia Structures, further quantifying costs at Rs. 50,000 per case.

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment

    1. Concurrent Remedies: Homebuyers can pursue remedies under both the Consumer Protection Act and RERA. The existence of RERA does not take away the right to approach consumer forums.
    2. Consumer Status: Individuals purchasing a single apartment for personal use are considered consumers, even if the developer alleges otherwise.
    3. Strict Scrutiny of Delay: Developers cannot rely on vague or unsubstantiated claims of force majeure to justify delays.
    4. Enforcement of Buyer Agreements: The terms of the builder-buyer agreement, especially regarding timelines and compensation for delay, are enforceable.
    5. No Automatic Extension Due to RERA Registration: The registration of a project under RERA does not extend the timeline for possession as per the original agreement.

    Implications for Homebuyers and Developers

    • For Homebuyers: This judgment empowers buyers to seek redressal for delayed possession through consumer forums, even after the advent of RERA. It also ensures that compensation and refunds are enforceable.
    • For Developers: The decision underscores the importance of timely delivery and transparency. Developers must adhere to contractual commitments and cannot evade liability by citing RERA registration or unsubstantiated force majeure events.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Imperia Structures case reinforces the rights of homebuyers and clarifies the interplay between RERA and the Consumer Protection Act. It sets a precedent for similar disputes, ensuring that consumer interests remain protected in the real estate sector.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court on Arbitration Fee Defaults: Procedural Closures Not Appealable Under Section 37(2)(b)

    Delhi High Court on Arbitration Fee Defaults: Procedural Closures Not Appealable Under Section 37(2)(b)

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.08.2026

    Delhi High Court on Arbitration Fee Defaults: Procedural Closures Not Appealable Under Section 37(2)(b)

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

    The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of ORBIT IN-TE-RIO v. American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd. provides important insights into the procedural aspects of arbitration, especially regarding the consequences of non-payment of arbitral fees and the maintainability of appeals under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    Background of the Dispute

    1. Fit-Out Agreement and Dispute
      • ORBIT IN-TE-RIO (Appellant) entered into a Fit-Out agreement with American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) on 28.11.2023 for supply and installation of fit-outs at the Respondent’s premises.
      • Disputes arose over performance, modifications, and additional works, leading to termination ofthe agreement by the Respondent on 15.02.2024.
      • The Respondent claimed approximately β‚Ή15 crores in damages, while the Appellant countered that substantial work was completed and their fit-outs remained in use without payment.
    2. Arbitration Proceedings
      • Arbitration was invoked, and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed.
      • Both parties filed claims and counterclaims, with the Appellant seeking interim protection and deposit of rent arrears under Section 17 of the Act.
      • The Tribunal directed the Appellant to deposit its share of arbitral fees before hearing its applications and counterclaim.
      • The Appellant deposited only part of the required fees, leading the Tribunal to close its right to pursue Section 17 applications and the counterclaim.

    Key Legal Issues Addressed

    1. Nature of the Tribunal’s Order

    • The Tribunal’s order closing the Appellant’s right to pursue applications and counterclaim was based solely on non-payment of arbitral fees.
    • The High Court held that this order was procedural and not an adjudication on the merits of the Section 17 applications.
    • The order did not grant or refuse interim measures but merely regulated the conduct of proceedings.

    2. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 37(2)(b)

    • Section 37(2)(b) allows appeals only against orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17.
    • Since the Tribunal’s order was procedural and did not decide the substantive entitlement to interim relief, the appeal was held not maintainable.

    3. Appropriate Remedy for Procedural Orders

    • The Court emphasized that the proper course for the Appellant was to seek recall or restoration of the order before the Tribunal itself, not to file an appeal.
    • The Supreme Court’s judgments in Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder Singh and ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa JV were cited, clarifying that procedural defaults (like non-payment of fees) should be addressed internally by the Tribunal through recall applications.

    4. Impact on Substantive Rights

    • The closure of applications due to fee default does not determine substantive rights or claims.
    • The Appellant remains a party to the arbitration and can participate in the proceedings, except for the closed applications and counterclaim unless the procedural default is remedied.

    Practical Implications for Arbitration Parties

    1. Compliance with Fee Directions
      • Parties must comply with arbitral fee deposit directions to avoid procedural closure of claims or applications.
    2. Procedural vs. Substantive Orders
      • Understanding the distinction is crucial: procedural orders regulate the process, while substantive orders decide rights or entitlements.
    3. Remedies for Procedural Defaults
      • The first remedy for procedural closures is to seek recall before the Tribunal, not immediate judicial intervention.
    4. Limits of Appellate Jurisdiction
      • Not all orders are appealable; only those that grant or refuse substantive relief under Section 17 can be challenged under Section 37(2)(b).

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that procedural orders, even if they affect valuable rights, do not automatically become appealable unless they decide substantive issues. Parties in arbitration must be vigilant about procedural requirements, especially fee deposits, and should seek remedies within the arbitral process before approaching courts.

    This decision provides clarity on the boundaries of appellate jurisdiction and the importance of distinguishing between procedural and substantive orders in arbitration.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Restores Higher Interim Maintenance for Minor Daughters

    Supreme Court Restores Higher Interim Maintenance for Minor Daughters

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 24.08.2026

    Supreme Court Restores Higher Interim Maintenance for Minor Daughters

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sujata Kumari & Ors. vs. Rahul Kumar & Anr., addressing the issue of interim maintenance for minor children in a family dispute. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal principles involved, and its broader implications for maintenance proceedings in India.

    Background of the Case

    1. Parties Involved:
      • Appellants: Sujata Kumari (wife) and her two minor daughters (aged 9 and 8).
      • Respondent: Rahul Kumar (husband).
    2. Marriage and Dispute:
      • The couple married in 2006 and had two daughters and a son (who sadly passed away).
      • Marital discord led to the wife and daughters leaving the marital home.
    3. Maintenance Petition:
      • In 2022, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking Rs. 2,50,000 per month as maintenance for herself and her daughters.
      • Both parents are qualified doctors: the wife is a practicing gynaecologist earning Rs. 1,50,000 per month, while the husband is a paediatrician claiming an income of Rs. 2,00,000 per month (the wife alleged he earned more and owned a nursing home).

    Orders by Lower Courts

    1. Family Court:
      • Granted interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to each daughter (total Rs. 60,000 per month).
      • Denied interim maintenance to the wife, citing her sufficient income.
    2. High Court:
      • On revision by the husband, the High Court reduced the maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month for each daughter (total Rs. 30,000 per month), reasoning that both parents should share the responsibility.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

    1. Restoration of Family Court Order:
      • The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reduction unjustified, noting that the High Court did not find the Family Court’s assessment excessive or perverse.
      • The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain children is shared, but cannot be divided by arithmetic alone.
    2. Recognition of Non-Monetary Contributions:
      • The Court highlighted that the mother, who has custody, contributes significantly through daily care and upbringing, which cannot be measured solely in financial terms.
    3. Quantum of Maintenance:
      • For two school-going daughters, Rs. 60,000 per month was deemed reasonable given the parents’ status and the children’s needs.
      • The Court restored the Family Court’s order, directing the husband to pay arrears within three months.
    4. Pending Main Petition:
      • The main maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC remains pending and will be decided on its own merits.

    Legal Principles Affirmed

    • Shared Parental Responsibility: Both parents are responsible for the maintenance of their children, but the division should consider not just income but also caregiving roles.
    • Interim Maintenance: The purpose is to ensure immediate support for dependents during the pendency of proceedings.
    • Judicial Discretion: Courts must assess the needs of the children and the financial capacity of both parents, avoiding mechanical or purely arithmetic division.

    Implications of the Judgment

    • The judgment reinforces the principle that the custodial parent’s non-monetary contributions are significant and must be factored into maintenance decisions.
    • It sets a precedent for Family Courts and High Courts to avoid arbitrary reductions in maintenance solely based on the earning capacity of the custodial parent.
    • The decision underscores the importance of a child-centric approach in maintenance matters, focusing on the best interests and welfare of the children.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sujata Kumari & Ors. vs. Rahul Kumar & Anr. is a landmark in maintenance jurisprudence, ensuring that interim maintenance awards are fair, reasonable, and reflective of both financial and caregiving contributions. It serves as a guiding light for similar disputes, emphasizing the holistic welfare of minor children above all else.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under RERA

    Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under RERA

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 22.08.2026

    Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under RERA

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .  

    The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) was enacted to bring transparency, accountability, and efficiency to the real estate sector in India. A key feature of RERA is the establishment of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which serves as the primary forum for appeals against decisions of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA Authority) and adjudicating officers. The case of Radicon Infrastructure And Housing Private Limited v. Dhaneshwari Devi Dhyani provides important judicial interpretation on the Tribunal’s establishment, jurisdiction, and functioning.

    Background of the Case

    • Parties Involved:
      • Appellant: Radicon Infrastructure And Housing Private Limited (promoter/builder)
      • Respondent: Dhaneshwari Devi Dhyani (allottee)
    • Dispute: The respondent booked a flat in 2013. Due to disputes over charges and delayed possession, she filed a complaint before the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, seeking relief from various penalties and compensation for delay.
    • Regulatory Authority’s Order: The Authority ordered the builder to deliver possession and pay 24% interest on the deposited amount from 2015 until possession. The builder appealed this decision.

    Key Legal Questions Addressed

    1. Can a Designated Appellate Tribunal Continue Beyond One Year?
      • Section 43(1) of RERA mandates the establishment of a Real Estate Appellate Tribunal within one year of the Act coming into force. However, the proviso allows the government to designate an existing tribunal to hear appeals until the regular tribunal is established.
      • The court clarified that the designated tribunal can continue to function beyond one year if the regular tribunal is not yet established, to avoid chaos and ensure consumer protection.
    2. Does Appointment of Chairperson and Members Establish the Tribunal?
      • The government appointed the Chairperson and members before officially establishing the tribunal by notification.
      • The court held that the tribunal is established only upon official notification under Section 43(1), not merely by appointing its members. The functioning of the designated tribunal remains valid until the regular tribunal is formally established and authorized.
    3. Jurisdiction of the Designated Tribunal After Establishment of the Regular Tribunal
      • Once the regular tribunal is established, all pending matters before the designated tribunal must be transferred to the new tribunal. Orders passed by the designated tribunal before this transfer remain valid.

    Judicial Reasoning and Interpretation

    • Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions:
      • While the Act uses the word “shall” regarding the one-year period for establishing the tribunal, the court interpreted this timeline as directory, not mandatory. This means that failure to establish the tribunal within one year does not invalidate its later establishment or the actions of the designated tribunal.
      • The court emphasized that statutory interpretation should not frustrate the Act’s objectives or cause injustice to parties who have no control over government delays.
    • Substantial Compliance:
      • The court applied the principle of substantial compliance, holding that as long as the government eventually establishes the tribunal and authorizes its members, minor procedural lapses or delays do not nullify the tribunal’s actions.

    Practical Implications for Stakeholders

    1. For Homebuyers and Allottees:
      • The appellate mechanism under RERA remains accessible even if there are delays in establishing the regular tribunal. Orders passed by designated tribunals are valid until the regular tribunal takes over.
    2. For Builders and Promoters:
      • Appeals must be filed before the appropriate tribunal as designated by the government. Builders are required to deposit a portion of the penalty or compensation before their appeal is entertained.
    3. For Government Authorities:
      • There is a statutory obligation to establish the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal within one year, but delays do not invalidate the process. However, timely establishment is crucial for effective dispute resolution.

    Conclusion

    The judgment in Radicon Infrastructure And Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhaneshwari Devi Dhyani clarifies that the establishment of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under RERA is mandatory, but the one-year timeline is directory. The functioning of designated tribunals remains valid until the regular tribunal is formally established and authorized. This interpretation upholds the Act’s objectives of consumer protection and efficient dispute resolution in the real estate sector.

    Connected Matter

    Discretion and Due Process: Tribunal’s Power to Demand Higher Pre-Deposit under RERA Examined

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Allahabad High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for DownloadDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay High Court Allows Housing Society to Replace Developer in Major Redevelopment Dispute

    Bombay High Court Allows Housing Society to Replace Developer in Major Redevelopment Dispute

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 22.08.2026

    Bombay High Court Allows Housing Society to Replace Developer in Major Redevelopment Dispute

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

    A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court has brought clarity to the rights and obligations of cooperative housing societies and developers in redevelopment projects. The dispute between Om Vithal Cooperative Housing Society and Trilogy Infra Pvt. Ltd. centered on the termination of a redevelopment agreement, delays, and the right to proceed with redevelopment.

    Background of the Dispute

    1. Initial Appointment and Defaults
      • Om Vithal Cooperative Housing Society, located in Borivali (West), Mumbai, initially appointed a different developer in 2015. After repeated defaults and abandonment, the society terminated that arrangement in 2023.
      • Following a fresh tender process, Trilogy Infra Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as the new developer in November 2023, with a Development Agreement and Power of Attorney executed.
    2. Obligations Under the Development Agreement
      • Trilogy Infra was required to obtain all necessary approvals, execute alternate accommodation agreements, pay rent to members, and complete the project within 18 months (plus a 6-month grace period).
      • The society alleged that the developer failed to meet these obligations, including non-payment of rent and lack of construction progress.
    3. Termination and Legal Proceedings
      • After repeated defaults and failed assurances, the society issued a Cure Notice and, upon non-compliance, terminated the agreement in May 2026.
      • Both parties filed arbitration petitions: the society sought to restrain the developer from interfering with redevelopment, while the developer sought to stay the termination and prevent dispossession.

    Key Arguments

    • Society’s Stand:
      • The developer failed to obtain approvals, pay rent, and show financial readiness.
      • Despite a 24-month extension, there was no meaningful progress.
      • The society lost confidence in the developer and sought to proceed with redevelopment independently or with a new developer.
    • Developer’s Stand:
      • Delays were attributed to a stay by MahaRERA and the complexity of parking structure construction.
      • Claimed readiness to clear arrears and continue the project if allowed.
      • Sought compensation if forced to exit the project.

    Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

    • The court recognized that while delays due to regulatory stays and construction complexities are valid, the developer’s continued defaultsβ€”especially non-payment of rent and lack of progressβ€”even after extensions, justified the society’s loss of confidence.
    • The court emphasized that the rights of society members to safe and habitable homes outweigh the developer’s commercial interests.
    • The court cited precedents affirming that societies should not be indefinitely bound to non-performing developers and that developers’ remedies for wrongful termination are primarily monetary.

    Interim Orders and Directions

    1. Society Permitted to Proceed:
      • The society is allowed to continue redevelopment, either by self-development or by appointing a new developer, subject to legal compliance.
    2. Developer Restrained:
      • Trilogy Infra and its agents are restrained from interfering with the society’s possession or redevelopment activities.
      • The developer cannot create third-party rights or represent itself as having ongoing rights under the terminated agreement.
    3. Document Handover:
      • The developer must hand over all original project documents to the society within two weeks, retaining only copies.
    4. Preservation of Claims:
      • The developer’s claims for damages or compensation due to alleged wrongful termination remain open for arbitration.
      • The society must maintain proper accounts and records to facilitate any future arbitral award.
    5. No Final Declaration:
      • The court did not grant a final declaration on the validity of the termination; this will be decided in arbitration.

    Implications for Redevelopment Projects

    • Balance of Interests: The judgment balances the need for timely redevelopment with the protection of developers’ financial interests through arbitration.
    • Precedent for Societies: Societies facing non-performing developers can seek similar interim reliefs, provided they maintain transparency and proper documentation.
    • Developers’ Remedies: Developers are entitled to claim damages if termination is found wrongful, but cannot indefinitely stall redevelopment.

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the principle that the welfare and housing rights of society members take precedence in redevelopment disputes. It provides a clear roadmap for societies and developers on handling defaults, terminations, and interim reliefs, ensuring that redevelopment projects do not remain stalled due to unresolved disputes.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Quashes Caste-Based Insult

    Supreme Court Quashes Caste-Based Insult

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 22.08.2026

    Supreme Court Quashes Caste-Based Insult

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Karuppudayar v. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy & Ors. This case revolved around the alleged use of caste-based insults and the application of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act). The Court’s decision provides important clarifications on what constitutes an offence under the SC-ST Act, especially regarding the requirement of public view.

    Background of the Case

    1. Incident Overview
      • On 2nd September 2021, the appellant, Karuppudayar, approached a Revenue Inspector to inquire about a petition related to his father’s land ownership (patta).
      • A quarrel ensued, during which the appellant allegedly abused the official by using his caste name inside the Revenue Divisional Office.
      • A complaint was filed, and a case was registered under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.
    2. Legal Proceedings
      • After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case proceeded to trial.
      • The appellant sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but the High Court dismissed his petitions.
      • The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Legal Issues Considered

    Key Provisions of the SC-ST Act

    • Section 3(1)(r): Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe in any place within public view.
    • Section 3(1)(s): Abuse of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

    What Constitutes “Public View”?

    • The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, notably Swaran Singh v. State and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, to clarify the meaning of “public view.”
    • A place is considered “within public view” if members of the public (not just relatives or friends) can witness or hear the alleged insult.
    • The distinction was made between a “public place” (owned or managed by the government or public bodies) and a “place within public view,” which could be private but accessible to public observation.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Incident Location
      • The alleged incident occurred inside the complainant’s office chamber.
      • The only people present during the incident were the complainant and the accused; colleagues arrived only after the incident.
    2. Application of Law
      • The Court held that since the incident did not occur in a place “within public view,” the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act were not met.
      • Even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, no offence under the SC-ST Act was made out.
    3. Quashing of Proceedings
      • The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly but is justified when the allegations do not constitute an offence, as outlined in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
      • The High Court had failed to consider the “public view” requirement, leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention.

    Final Judgment

    • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and set aside all proceedings against the appellant in the trial court.

    Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners and the Public

    1. Public View Requirement: For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, the insult or abuse must occur in a place where the public can witness it.
    2. Private Interactions: Incidents occurring in private, without public presence, do not attract these provisions.
    3. Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must carefully examine whether the statutory ingredients are met before allowing criminal proceedings to continue under the SC-ST Act.

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the need for a clear distinction between private and public acts when applying the SC-ST Act. It serves as a precedent for future cases, ensuring that only those incidents that truly meet the legal criteria proceed to trial.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court on the Essential Requirement of ‘Public View’ for Caste-Based Offences under the SC/ST Act

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Discretion and Due Process: Tribunal’s Power to Demand Higher Pre-Deposit under RERA Examined

    Discretion and Due Process: Tribunal’s Power to Demand Higher Pre-Deposit under RERA Examined

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 21.08.2026

    Discretion and Due Process: Tribunal’s Power to Demand Higher Pre-Deposit under RERA Examined

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .  

    The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) has introduced significant reforms in the real estate sector, particularly regarding dispute resolution and the rights of promoters and allottees. A recent legal case involving the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) and the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) provides valuable clarity on the interpretation of pre-deposit requirements for appeals under RERA.

    Background of the Case

    The AFNHB, a zero-profit society dedicated to providing affordable housing to Indian Air Force and Navy personnel and their widows, faced a penalty imposed by RERA. When AFNHB appealed this penalty, it deposited 30% of the penalty amount, as required by Section 43(5) of the Act. However, the Appellate Tribunal demanded the deposit of the entire penalty amount as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of AFNHB’s appeal for non-compliance.

    Key Legal Issue

    The central question was: Is the deposit of the entire disputed penalty a mandatory pre-condition to maintain an appeal under Section 44(2) of RERA, or is depositing 30% sufficient unless the Tribunal specifically determines otherwise?

    Legal Analysis and Court Findings

    1. Statutory Framework

    • Section 43(5) of RERA mandates that a promoter must deposit at least 30% of the penalty (or a higher percentage if determined by the Tribunal) before an appeal is entertained.
    • The Tribunal has discretion to require a higher deposit, but this must be based on a reasoned determination, not applied routinely.

    2. Judicial Precedents

    • The right of appeal is a substantive right and can only be restricted by clear statutory provisions.
    • The Supreme Court has held that any statutory limitation on the right of appeal, such as pre-deposit requirements, must be strictly construed and cannot be expanded by interpretation.

    3. Tribunal’s Discretion

    • The Tribunal can require more than 30% deposit only after careful consideration of the case’s facts, including the merits, financial hardship, and potential irreparable harm to the appellant.
    • Routine imposition of the full penalty as a pre-deposit would make the right of appeal illusory, especially since the Tribunal is the only forum for factual appeals under RERA.

    4. Application to the AFNHB Case

    • The Tribunal did not provide specific reasons for demanding the full penalty deposit from AFNHB.
    • The High Court found that the Tribunal misapplied the law and relevant precedents, as neither the statute nor previous judgments mandated a full penalty deposit in every case.
    • The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and allowed the appeal to proceed on the basis of the 30% deposit already made by AFNHB.

    Implications for Promoters and Allottees

    1. Minimum Pre-Deposit: Promoters must deposit at least 30% of the penalty to maintain an appeal against a RERA order.
    2. Tribunal’s Discretion: The Tribunal may require a higher deposit, but only with specific, reasoned justification based on the case’s circumstances.
    3. Protection of Appeal Rights: Arbitrary or routine demands for full penalty deposits are not supported by law and can be challenged.
    4. Special Considerations: Factors such as the appellant’s non-profit status, financial hardship, and the nature of the infraction should be considered before increasing the pre-deposit requirement.

    Conclusion

    This case reinforces that while RERA aims to ensure compliance and accountability, it also protects the substantive rights of promoters to appeal. The pre-deposit requirement is a safeguard, not a barrier, and must be applied judiciously. Promoters facing penalties should be aware of their rights and the conditions under which higher pre-deposits may be demanded, ensuring that access to justice remains fair and reasonable.

    Connected Matter

    Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under RERA

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Allahabad High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com