Tag: #LegalView

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

    Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under RERA

    Date: 22.08.2026

    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.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • 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

    Date: 22.08.2026

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • Supreme Court Quashes Caste-Based Insult

    Supreme Court Quashes Caste-Based Insult

    Date: 22.08.2026

    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.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • 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

    Date: 21.08.2026

    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.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • Bombay High Court on Interim Relief in Transport Contract Termination

    Bombay High Court on Interim Relief in Transport Contract Termination

    Date: 21.08.2026

    A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court has brought clarity to the legal landscape surrounding the termination of transport contracts by public sector undertakings, specifically in the context of LPG transportation tenders. The case involved multiple arbitration petitions filed by transport contractors against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), challenging the termination of their contracts and the forfeiture of caution money.

    Background of the Dispute

    The dispute arose from a tender issued by BPCL for the transportation of bulk LPG in Tamil Nadu. The tender allowed participation by contractors who had trucks under an Agreement to Sell (ATS), with a requirement to transfer ownership and the PESO (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation) licence within 120 days of the Letter of Intent (LOI). Failure to comply could result in penal actions, including termination and forfeiture of caution money.

    Several contractors, including P. Perumal Transports, faced termination after minor delays in transferring the PESO licence, despite having completed the transfer of the Registration Certificate within the stipulated period. The contractors argued that the delay was minimal and that BPCL’s actions were disproportionate, especially since the company continued to allot loads even after the deadline.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Nature of the Contract: Was the contract determinable, allowing BPCL to terminate at will, or did it require strict adherence to procedural fairness and proportionality?
    2. Compliance with Deadlines: Did a short delay in transferring the PESO licence justify termination and forfeiture of caution money?
    3. Grant of Interim Relief: Should the court grant interim relief to restore the contract and prevent forfeiture of caution money pending arbitration?

    Arguments Presented

    Petitioners (Transport Contractors)

    • The contractors argued that the termination was disproportionate to the minor procedural lapse.
    • They emphasized that the essential requirements (ownership and licence transfer) were substantially complied with.
    • The continued allotment of loads after the deadline indicated that BPCL did not treat the time limits as strictly mandatory.
    • Loss of business, reputation, and the limited operational life of specialized LPG trucks constituted irreparable harm.

    Respondents (BPCL/IOCL)

    • BPCL maintained that the contract was determinable and that the right to terminate was clearly reserved in the agreement.
    • The Corrigendum and General Conditions of Contract formed an integral part of the agreement, and the timeline for compliance was non-negotiable.
    • The contractors were aware of the consequences of non-compliance, having executed affidavits to that effect.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    • The Court recognized that the Corrigendum provided a four-month period for compliance, with penal actions for non-compliance, but did not mandate automatic termination.
    • The delay in transferring the PESO licence was only four days, and the licence was transferred seven days after the deadline.
    • The Court noted that while the delay was short, the contract expressly required compliance within the stipulated period, and the contractors had accepted these terms.
    • The contract contained a clause allowing BPCL to terminate with 30 days’ notice without assigning any reason, making it determinable by nature.
    • The Court held that granting interim relief to restore the contract would, in effect, amount to specific performance of a determinable contract, which is not permissible under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act.
    • However, the Court directed BPCL to maintain the caution money in a separate account and not to appropriate it until the arbitral tribunal decides the dispute.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Strict Enforcement of Contractual Deadlines: Contractors must strictly adhere to timelines for compliance with tender conditions, especially when dealing with public sector undertakings.
    2. Determinable Contracts: Contracts that allow termination without cause are considered determinable, limiting the scope for courts to grant interim relief restoring such contracts.
    3. Proportionality and Discretion: While minor procedural lapses may not always justify termination, the existence of a determinable contract clause gives significant discretion to the principal (BPCL/IOCL).
    4. Preservation of Disputed Sums: Courts may protect caution money or similar sums pending arbitration, ensuring that parties are not prejudiced before the final resolution.

    Conclusion

    This judgment underscores the importance of compliance with contractual terms and the limited scope for judicial intervention in determinable contracts. While the Court showed sensitivity to the contractors’ predicament, it ultimately upheld the contractual right of BPCL to terminate, subject to the preservation of caution money until arbitration.

    The decision serves as a crucial precedent for contractors and public sector undertakings alike, emphasizing the need for clarity, fairness, and adherence to agreed timelines in commercial contracts.

    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.

    Handy Download:

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

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

    Date: 21.08.2026

    This article provides a detailed overview and analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2026 INSC 895), which addresses critical issues under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), particularly the requirement of “public view” for caste-based offences.

    Background of the Case

    1. Incident and FIRs
      • The dispute arose from an altercation at Krishna Public School, where the appellant, Ramkrishna Chauhan, was the Manager.
      • On 24th January 2020, a quarrel among students led to injuries to the son of Respondent No. 2, who then approached the appellant.
      • It was alleged that the appellant, along with school staff, assaulted Respondent No. 2 and used caste-based abuses.
      • FIR No. 37 of 2020 was filed against the appellant under various sections of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
      • A counter FIR (No. 39 of 2020) was filed by the appellant’s wife against Respondent No. 2 for assault and abuse.
    2. Legal Proceedings
      • The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the summoning order.
      • The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not met.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Requirement of “Public View” under SC/ST Act

    Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act penalize intentional insults or abuses by caste name “in any place within public view.” The Supreme Court reiterated that:

    • A place is considered “within public view” only if members of the public can witness or hear the alleged utterance.
    • If the incident occurs in a private, enclosed space without public access, the requirement is not satisfied.

    2. Analysis of Evidence

    • The FIR and site plan indicated the incident occurred inside an enclosed room (room “A”) in the school, with no public access or windows.
    • Witness statements did not confirm their presence inside the room or that they heard any caste-based abuses.
    • No specific caste-based words or slurs were attributed to the appellant in the FIR or witness statements; allegations were general and vague.

    Supreme Court’s Findings

    1. Lack of Public View
      • The Court found that the essential requirement of “public view” was not met, as the incident took place in a private room without public access.
      • The presence of witnesses elsewhere in the school did not establish that they witnessed or heard the alleged abuses.
    2. Absence of Specific Allegations
      • The FIR and statements lacked specific details of caste-based abuse by the appellant.
      • The material on record, at best, indicated a quarrel and scuffle, not a caste-based offence under the SC/ST Act.
    3. Quashing of Proceedings
      • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the proceedings against the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
      • Proceedings for other IPC offences were allowed to continue.

    Legal Significance

    • Clarification of “Public View”: The judgment reinforces that for offences under the SC/ST Act, the alleged insult or abuse must occur in a setting where it is witnessed or heard by the public, not merely in a public institution or building.
    • Requirement of Specific Allegations: General or vague allegations are insufficient; specific caste-based words or intent must be clearly established.
    • Protection Against Misuse: The decision provides safeguards against the misuse of the SC/ST Act by ensuring that only cases meeting the statutory requirements proceed to trial.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of U.P. underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for offences under the SC/ST Act. It highlights the need for clear, specific allegations and the presence of “public view” to sustain charges of caste-based abuse, ensuring both the protection of marginalized communities and the rights of the accused.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • Independence, Impartiality, and Equality in Indian Arbitration

    Independence, Impartiality, and Equality in Indian Arbitration

    Date: 20.08.2026

    The Supreme Court of India’s recent Constitution Bench judgment in the case involving the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE) and M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) has fundamentally clarified the principles governing the appointment of arbitrators under Indian law. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, its legal context, and its implications for arbitration in India, especially in public-private contracts.

    Background: The Core Issues

    The judgment addresses three pivotal questions:

    1. Is it lawful for a party with an interest in a dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or curate a panel from which the other party must select?
    2. Does the principle of equal treatment apply at the stage of appointing arbitrators?
    3. Are such appointment processes in public-private contracts violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law)?

    Legal Framework: Party Autonomy vs. Mandatory Safeguards

    • Party Autonomy: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) gives parties significant freedom to design their arbitration process, including the appointment of arbitrators.
    • Mandatory Provisions: However, this autonomy is subject to non-derogable principles such as equality of parties (Section 18), independence and impartiality of arbitrators (Section 12), and fairness in procedure.
    • 2015 Amendment: Section 12(5) was introduced, making anyone with certain relationships to the parties ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator, unless both parties expressly waive this after a dispute arises.

    Key Principles Established by the Judgment

    1. Equality at All Stages

    • The principle of equal treatment (Section 18) applies not just during the arbitration proceedings but also at the stage of appointing arbitrators.
    • Any process that gives one party a dominant or exclusive role in appointing arbitrators is inherently unequal and raises doubts about impartiality.

    2. Unilateral Appointments and Curated Panels

    • Clauses allowing one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or require the other party to select from a panel curated by the first party are generally invalid.
    • Such arrangements violate both the equality principle and the requirement for independence and impartiality.
    • In public-private contracts, these clauses are also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    3. Public Policy and Unconscionability

    • Arbitration agreements must not be unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
    • The court reaffirmed that contracts induced by undue influence or that restrict access to justice are void.

    4. Judicial Intervention: Minimal but Decisive

    • Courts should intervene only when necessary, such as when the agreed procedure fails or is manifestly unfair.
    • The court’s role is to ensure the appointment of an independent and impartial tribunal, not to routinely override party autonomy.

    5. Prospective Application

    • The new law applies prospectively to arbitrator appointments made after the date of the judgment, especially for three-member tribunals.

    Practical Implications

    • For Government and PSUs: While maintaining panels of arbitrators is permitted, mandating the other party to select only from such panels is not.
    • For Private Parties: Both parties must have an equal say in the appointment process. Any clause that restricts this can be challenged.
    • For Ongoing Arbitrations: The law applies prospectively, so existing tribunals are not automatically invalidated.

    Comparative and International Perspective

    • The judgment aligns Indian law with international best practices, where party autonomy is respected but not at the cost of fairness and impartiality.
    • Many foreign jurisdictions also prohibit unilateral appointments or provide for court intervention when the process is unfair.

    Conclusion

    This Supreme Court judgment marks a significant step in strengthening the integrity of arbitration in India. By reinforcing the principles of equality, independence, and impartiality, it ensures that arbitration remains a credible and effective alternative to traditional litigation, especially in contracts involving the government or public sector undertakings.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • Kerala High Court on Enforcement of RERA Recovery and Property Attachment

    Kerala High Court on Enforcement of RERA Recovery and Property Attachment

    Date: 20.08.2026

    A recent judgment by the High Court of Kerala has brought clarity to the process of property attachment and recovery proceedings in real estate disputes. The case involved P.A. Jihas, Managing Director of Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd., and several respondents, including the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority and private individuals. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal journey, and the implications of the court’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated from a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) by a private respondent against Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the complaint, ordered the company to refund β‚Ή25,00,000 with interest at 14.05% per annum. This order set off a series of appeals and legal proceedings:

    1. Initial Order (2021): The Adjudicating Authority directed Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd. to refund the amount with interest.
    2. First Appeal (2022): The Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for recalculation of compensation and interest.
    3. Revised Order (2024): The Adjudicating Authority reaffirmed the payment of β‚Ή25,00,000 in instalments with interest.
    4. Second Appeal (2025): Jewel Homes appealed again, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to delay.
    5. High Court Proceedings (2026): The matter reached the High Court, which issued the final judgment.

    Key Issues Addressed

    • Adjustment of Amounts Paid: The appellants claimed that β‚Ή12.8 lakhs had already been received by the complainants, which was not considered in the recovery proceedings.
    • Calculation of Interest: The appellants sought reworking of interest for amounts already deposited.
    • Execution of Recovery: The court clarified the process for calculating the final amount due and the role of the Recovery Officer.

    Highlights of the High Court Judgment

    1. Opportunity to Adjust Payments: The court allowed the appellants to raise the issue of prior payments before the Adjudicating Authority during execution.
    2. Stay on Attachment: An unconditional stay of the order of attachment was granted for one week, provided β‚Ή12.20 lakhs was deposited within that period.
    3. Final Calculation by Recovery Officer: The Recovery Officer was directed to determine the actual amount due, after hearing both parties, within eight weeks.
    4. Restriction on Property Dealings: The first appellant was barred from dealing with or encumbering the property until the full adjudicated amount was paid.
    5. Enforcement of Attachment: If the required deposit was not made within the stipulated time, the order of attachment would be enforced.

    Legal and Practical Implications

    • Due Process in Recovery: The judgment reinforces the importance of due process and fair hearing in recovery proceedings under RERA.
    • Protection for Homebuyers: The decision upholds the rights of homebuyers to receive refunds and interest as adjudicated by regulatory authorities.
    • Obligations for Builders: Builders must comply with orders promptly or risk attachment and restrictions on their properties.

    Conclusion

    This Kerala High Court judgment serves as a significant precedent for real estate disputes, emphasizing transparency, procedural fairness, and the enforcement of regulatory orders. Stakeholders in the real estate sector should take note of the legal obligations and remedies highlighted in this case.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Law on FIR Registration After Section 156(3) Cr.PC Rejection

    Supreme Court Clarifies Law on FIR Registration After Section 156(3) Cr.PC Rejection

    Date: 20.08.2026

    This article provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2026 INSC 887), a significant ruling on the interplay between criminal procedure, the doctrine of res judicata, and the powers of police and magistrates in criminal investigations.

    Background and Factual Matrix

    • Allegations: The appellant, Pramod Kumar Shukla, was accused of fraudulently promising government jobs in exchange for money. The complainant alleged that Shukla claimed influence in the Directorate of Education, Prayagraj, and could secure clerk positions for the complainant’s relatives for β‚Ή20,00,000. Several payments were made to Shukla, but no jobs materialized.
    • Escalation: When pressed for a refund, Shukla allegedly abused and threatened the complainant and his family. The complainant reported the matter to the police, providing bank statements and purported forged documents.
    • Legal Proceedings: An initial application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC (requesting the Magistrate to order police investigation) was rejected, as the police report suggested a civil land dispute rather than a criminal matter. The complainant then filed a fresh complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 405/2024 for various offences including cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation.

    Legal Issues and Arguments

    Appellant’s Contentions

    1. Civil Dispute: The appellant argued that the matter was a civil dispute over land, not a criminal offence.
    2. Res Judicata: It was contended that the rejection of the earlier Section 156(3) application barred further criminal proceedings on the same facts.
    3. No Cognizable Offence: The appellant claimed that even if the allegations were accepted, no cognizable offence was made out.
    4. Abuse of Process: The FIR was alleged to be motivated by malice, filed only after the earlier application was rejected.

    Respondent’s Contentions

    1. Fresh Material: The State argued that the FIR was based on new evidence (audio recordings, bank details, forged documents) not previously considered.
    2. Pattern of Offending: The appellant had multiple similar FIRs against him, supporting the need for investigation.
    3. No Bar to FIR: There is no legal bar to registering an FIR based on fresh material, even after a Section 156(3) application is rejected.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis

    Statutory Framework

    • Section 154 Cr.PC: Mandates police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
    • Section 156(3) Cr.PC: Allows a Magistrate to order police investigation if the police fail to act.
    • Section 190 Cr.PC: Outlines when a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence.

    Key Legal Principles

    1. Nature of Section 156(3) Orders: Orders under Section 156(3) are not adjudications on the merits but directions to investigate. Rejection of such an application does not bar subsequent FIRs or investigations.
    2. Doctrine of Res Judicata: The doctrine applies in criminal law only where there has been a final adjudication on merits (e.g., acquittal after trial). It does not apply to procedural orders like rejection of a Section 156(3) application.
    3. Fresh Material: If new evidence emerges, a fresh FIR or investigation is permissible.
    4. Role of Courts in Quashing FIRs: Courts should only quash FIRs at the threshold if, on the face of the allegations, no cognizable offence is made out. Disputed facts and evidence are for trial.

    Application to the Case

    • The Supreme Court found that the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR. The allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed cognizable offences.
    • The rejection of the earlier Section 156(3) application did not preclude the police from registering an FIR based on new material.
    • The appellant’s arguments about the nature of the transaction and the credibility of evidence were matters for investigation and trial, not for summary dismissal.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 156(3) Cr.PC: Rejection of an application under this section does not bar subsequent criminal proceedings if new material is presented.
    2. Limits of Res Judicata in Criminal Law: The doctrine does not apply to procedural orders that do not decide the merits of the case.
    3. Reinforces Police Duty: Police must register and investigate cognizable offences, regardless of prior procedural rejections.
    4. Guidance for High Courts: High Courts should be cautious in quashing FIRs, intervening only when no offence is disclosed on the face of the complaint.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of allowing criminal investigations to proceed when allegations of cognizable offences are made, especially when new evidence emerges. It clarifies the limited scope of procedural bars and reinforces the principle that substantive justice should not be thwarted by technicalities.

    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.

    Handy Download:

  • Madras High Court Clarifies RERA Registration Exemption and Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Projects

    Madras High Court Clarifies RERA Registration Exemption and Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Projects

    Date: 19.08.2026

    A recent judgment by the Madras High Court in the case of Devinarayan Housing and Property Developments Private Limited vs. Manu Karan & Others has clarified crucial aspects of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) regarding project registration and the rights of home buyers in unregistered projects. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, legal questions, and the implications for developers and home buyers.

    Case Background

    • Parties Involved:
      • Appellants: Devinarayan Housing and Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. (developers)
      • Respondents: Manu Karan and Archana Karan (home buyers)
    • Project Details:
      • Sale and construction agreement dated 20.07.2017 for an apartment in ‘Devi Narayan’s Saisagar’, Chennai.
      • Apartment cost: Rs. 3.3 crore; buyers paid Rs. 3.06 crore.
      • Dispute arose due to non-handover of possession and refund issues.

    Legal Proceedings Timeline

    1. Home Buyers’ Complaints:
      • Filed for compensation and execution of sale deed before RERA authorities.
    2. Developers’ Defense:
      • Claimed project was completed before RERA came into force and thus exempt from registration.
    3. Adjudicating Officer’s Order:
      • Directed developers to pay compensation to buyers.
    4. Appeals:
      • Developers appealed to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT), which upheld the compensation order.
      • Buyers appealed against the dismissal of their complaint for sale deed registration; TNREAT ruled in their favor.
    5. High Court Appeal:
      • Developers challenged TNREAT’s decisions in the Madras High Court.

    Key Legal Questions Addressed

    1. Does RERA Registration Apply?

    • Section 3(2)(a) of RERA: Exempts projects from registration if either:
      • The land area does not exceed 500 sq. meters, or
      • The number of apartments does not exceed eight (inclusive of all phases).
    • Court’s Interpretation:
      • The word “or” is to be read disjunctively, not conjunctively.
      • If a project meets either condition, it is exempt from registration.
      • In this case, although the land exceeded 500 sq. meters, only eight apartments were constructed, qualifying for exemption.

    2. Can Home Buyers of Unregistered Projects Seek Relief Under RERA?

    • Section 31 of RERA: Allows aggrieved persons to file complaints for violations of the Act.
    • Court’s Ruling:
      • RERA authorities have jurisdiction only over registered projects.
      • Home buyers of unregistered projects cannot seek remedies under RERA.
      • Their recourse lies with civil courts or consumer forums.

    Implications of the Judgment

    For Developers

    1. Clarity on Registration Exemptions:
      • Projects with eight or fewer apartments, regardless of land size, are exempt from RERA registration.
    2. Reduced Compliance Burden:
      • Developers of small projects are not subject to RERA’s regulatory requirements.

    For Home Buyers

    1. Limited RERA Protection:
      • Buyers in unregistered projects cannot approach RERA authorities for grievances.
    2. Alternative Remedies:
      • Must seek redress through civil courts or consumer forums.

    Conclusion

    The Madras High Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the scope of RERA’s applicability, especially for small-scale real estate projects. While it offers relief to developers of such projects, home buyers must be aware of their limited protection under RERA and consider alternative legal avenues for dispute resolution. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future disputes involving RERA registration and the rights of allottees in unregistered projects.

    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.

    Handy Download: