Tag: #ParaLegalServices

  • Karnataka High Court Upholds RERA Authority’s Power: Promoters Ordered to Refund Excess Charges to Homebuyers

    Karnataka High Court Upholds RERA Authority’s Power: Promoters Ordered to Refund Excess Charges to Homebuyers

    Date: 29.08.2026

    This article provides a detailed overview and analysis of a recent judgment by the High Court of Karnataka concerning a dispute under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The case highlights key issues around project registration, refund claims, and the jurisdiction of regulatory authorities in Karnataka’s real estate sector.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose between the appellantsβ€”Mr. Navaratan Jhunjhunwala and M/s Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.β€”and the respondents, including the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and two individual allottees (Sowmya Nayak Ullal and Ullal Prakash Nayak). The appellants challenged an order from the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld a previous order by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA Authority) directing the promoters to refund excess amounts collected from the allottees.

    Key Facts

    1. Excess Collection Allegation: The promoters collected an additional deposit of Rs. 1,75,000 from the allottees for payments to BESCOM, BWSSB, Khata, and transfer of electric meter.
    2. Occupancy Certificate and Sale Deed:
      • Sale deed executed: 23 March 2016
      • Occupancy certificate obtained: 5 February 2020
    3. Refund Claim: The allottees claimed that only Rs. 75,000 was actually spent for the stated purposes, and sought a refund of the remaining Rs. 1,00,000 plus interest.
    4. Agreement Terms: The agreement to sell did not mention any additional charges for the stated purposes, strengthening the allottees’ claim.

    Legal Issues Examined

    1. Jurisdiction of RERA and Appellate Tribunal

    The promoters argued that since the project was not registered under RERA, the Authority lacked jurisdiction. They cited Explanation (iv) to Rule 4 of the Karnataka RERA Rules, 2017, claiming their project was not ongoing and thus exempt from registration.

    Court’s Finding:

    • The project was not registered, and no evidence was provided that a completion or occupancy certificate application was made before RERA’s commencement.
    • Section 3 of the RERA Act mandates registration of ongoing projects unless a completion certificate was obtained before the Act commenced. The promoters failed to demonstrate such exemption.
    • The court held that the RERA Authority and Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction in this matter.

    2. Entitlement to Refund

    The core issue was whether the promoters could charge amounts not specified in the agreement to sell.

    Court’s Finding:

    • The agreement did not authorize the collection of additional amounts for BESCOM, BWSSB, or meter transfer.
    • The allottees were entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,76,811 (including interest), as calculated up to 30 November 2023.

    Judgment and Implications

    • The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the RERA Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.
    • The promoters were directed to refund the excess amount collected, with interest, to the allottees.
    • The judgment reinforces the importance of project registration under RERA and strict adherence to the terms of the agreement to sell.

    Key Takeaways for Stakeholders

    1. Promoters/Builders:
      • Must register ongoing projects under RERA unless a valid exemption applies.
      • Cannot collect charges from allottees beyond what is specified in the agreement.
    2. Homebuyers/Allottees:
      • Can seek redressal and refunds for unauthorized charges through RERA mechanisms.
      • Should ensure all payment terms are clearly documented in the agreement.
    3. Legal Practitioners:
      • The case sets a precedent for interpreting RERA’s jurisdiction and the enforceability of agreement terms.

    Conclusion

    This judgment by the Karnataka High Court underscores the robust protections offered to homebuyers under RERA and the necessity for promoters to comply with statutory requirements. It serves as a cautionary tale for real estate developers and a reassurance for allottees seeking transparency and fairness in real estate transactions.

    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:

  • Gujarat High Court Clarifies Limits of Arbitration in Partnership Disputes: Section 8 Applications and Legal Heirs’ Rights

    Gujarat High Court Clarifies Limits of Arbitration in Partnership Disputes: Section 8 Applications and Legal Heirs’ Rights

    Date: 29.08.2026

    The Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Nirmal Arvind Mody vs. Neha H. Trivedi & Ors. (First Appeal No. 2665 of 2026), addressing the interplay between arbitration clauses in partnership deeds and the right to seek civil remedies for recovery of loans and dissolution of partnerships. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, its legal context, and its implications for partnership and arbitration law in India.

    Background of the Case

    • The dispute arose from a partnership firm, M/s. Team Engineers, where the plaintiffs (legal heirs of a deceased partner) sought multiple reliefs:
      • Recovery of loans given by the plaintiffs to the partnership firm.
      • Dissolution and winding up of the partnership firm.
      • Settlement of accounts and distribution of assets, goodwill, and profits as per the deceased partner’s share.
    • The defendants argued that, due to an arbitration clause in the partnership deed, the matter should be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
    • The Commercial Court refused to refer the matter to arbitration, leading to the present appeal.

    Key Legal Issues Considered

    1. Scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
      • Whether the existence of an arbitration clause mandates referral of all disputes to arbitration, even if some claims (like loan recovery) are not covered by the arbitration agreement.
    2. Bifurcation of Causes of Action
      • Whether courts can split the suit, referring arbitrable issues to arbitration and retaining non-arbitrable issues.
    3. Binding Nature of Arbitration Clauses on Legal Heirs
      • Whether legal heirs of a deceased partner are bound by the arbitration clause in the partnership deed.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Arbitration Clause and Its Limits

    • The Court acknowledged that the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, binding both the original partners and their legal heirs for disputes relating to dissolution and settlement of accounts.
    • However, the claim for recovery of loans given by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity was not covered by the arbitration agreement.

    2. Inextricable Link Between Claims

    • The Court found that the reliefs sought (loan recovery and dissolution/accounting) were closely linked and could not be separated for piecemeal adjudication.
    • Referring only some issues to arbitration would risk conflicting decisions, delay, and increased costs.

    3. Precedents and Amendments Considered

    • The judgment reviewed key Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including:
      • Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya (2003): Pre-2015, courts could not bifurcate causes of action for arbitration.
      • Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises (2018): Post-2015 amendments, courts must refer matters to arbitration unless there is no valid arbitration agreement.
      • Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021): Laid down tests for non-arbitrability and clarified the limited scope of judicial review at the referral stage.
    • The Court emphasized that, post-amendment, the only bar to referral is the non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement for the subject matter.

    4. Application to the Present Case

    • The Court held that, since the loan recovery claims were not covered by the arbitration clause and were inextricably linked to the dissolution/accounting claims, the entire dispute could not be referred to arbitration.
    • The plaintiffs did not structure their suit to avoid arbitration; rather, the nature of their claims necessitated a single proceeding.

    Final Judgment and Its Implications

    • The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commercial Court’s refusal to refer the matter to arbitration.
    • The judgment clarified that:
      1. Not all disputes involving a partnership with an arbitration clause must be referred to arbitrationβ€”only those covered by the agreement.
      2. Where claims are inextricably linked and not all are arbitrable, courts may retain jurisdiction over the entire suit.
      3. Legal heirs are bound by the arbitration clause for partnership-related disputes, but not for independent claims like personal loans.
    • The Court cautioned that this judgment is based on the specific facts and should not be treated as a binding precedent for all Section 8 applications.

    Practical Takeaways for Partnerships and Arbitration

    1. Drafting Arbitration Clauses: Ensure that the scope of the arbitration clause is clear and covers all intended disputes, including those involving legal heirs or related financial transactions.
    2. Filing Suits with Multiple Reliefs: Plaintiffs should be aware that if their claims are closely linked and not all are arbitrable, courts may refuse to split the proceedings.
    3. Legal Heirs’ Rights: Legal heirs can enforce or be bound by arbitration clauses for partnership matters, but not for independent claims unless expressly covered.

    This judgment reinforces the importance of precise drafting in partnership agreements and provides clarity on the limits of arbitration in complex partnership 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:

  • Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court

    Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court

    Date: 29.08.2026

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Pinaki Mishra v. State & Anr., quashing a criminal defamation case against Pinaki Mishra. This article provides a detailed overview of the case background, legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications for defamation law in India.

    Background of the Case

    1. Origin of the Dispute
      • The controversy began when Siddhartha Singh filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi, alleging professional misconduct by Pinaki Mishra.
      • Following this, Mishra allegedly referred to Singh as a “crook” and “black mailer” in a response and in an interview published by Dailyhunt News.
      • Singh filed two separate criminal complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation, leading to summoning orders against Mishra.
    2. Proceedings in Lower Courts
      • The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) took cognizance of the complaints and summoned Mishra to face trial.
      • Mishra challenged the summoning order and the underlying complaint, seeking their quashing before the Delhi High Court.

    Legal Arguments Presented

    Arguments by Pinaki Mishra (Petitioner)

    1. Lack of Prima Facie Evidence
      • Mishra argued that the complainant failed to produce any witness (other than himself) to establish that the alleged defamatory statements had actually lowered his reputation in the eyes of others, as required by Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC.
    2. Admissibility of Evidence
      • The online news article was not proved through its reporter, nor was it accompanied by the necessary certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it inadmissible as evidence.
    3. Procedural Irregularities
      • The complaint was based on hearsay and secondary evidence, and the complainant had not fulfilled the legal requirements for establishing defamation.
    4. Non-Appearance of Complainant
      • The complainant remained absent for extended periods, further weakening the case.

    Arguments by Siddhartha Singh (Respondent)

    • Singh maintained that the statements were defamatory and had harmed his reputation, and that the court at the summoning stage only needed to see if a prima facie case existed.
    • He argued that disputed facts and evidentiary issues should be decided at trial, not at the stage of issuing summons.

    Judicial Reasoning and Findings

    1. Requirement of Prima Facie Evidence
      • The Court emphasized that to constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation that lowers the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others.
      • Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court held that the complainant must produce at least one witness (other than himself) to show that his reputation was actually lowered.
    2. Admissibility of Online News Reports
      • The Court noted that the news article was not proved by examining the reporter or providing the required electronic evidence certification, rendering it hearsay and inadmissible.
    3. Absence of Foundational Material
      • The complainant’s failure to provide independent evidence or witnesses meant that the basic ingredients of the offence were not established, even at the prima facie stage.
    4. Judicial Discretion and Abuse of Process
      • The Court found that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice and would subject the petitioner to unnecessary hardship.

    Outcome

    • The Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order and all consequential proceedings against Pinaki Mishra, allowing his petition.

    Broader Implications for Defamation Law

    1. Higher Threshold for Summoning in Defamation Cases
      • Complainants must provide independent evidence that the alleged defamatory statement actually harmed their reputation in the eyes of others.
    2. Strict Admissibility Standards for Electronic Evidence
      • Online publications must be properly proved in court, including certification and examination of relevant witnesses.
    3. Judicial Scrutiny at the Summoning Stage
      • Courts must ensure that the basic statutory requirements are met before issuing process in criminal defamation cases.

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal defamation proceedings cannot be initiated lightly. The requirement for independent evidence and proper proof of publication serves as a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious litigation. The decision is a significant precedent for future defamation cases involving online publications and highlights the importance of procedural rigor in criminal law.

    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:

  • Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws in Matrimonial Dispute for Lack of Specific Allegations Under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 IPC

    Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws in Matrimonial Dispute for Lack of Specific Allegations Under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 IPC

    Date: 29.08.2026

    The Karnataka High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in Criminal Petition No. 2918 of 2019, quashing criminal proceedings against several family members accused under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal principles involved, and the broader implications for matrimonial disputes in India.

    Background of the Case

    The petitioners, who were family members of the complainant’s husband, approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against them. The original complaint alleged cruelty and harassment, leading to the registration of a criminal case under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.

    Key Facts

    1. Parties Involved:
      • Petitioners: Accused family members (not including the husband)
      • Respondent: The complainant (wife)
      • The husband was not a party to this particular petition.
    2. Nature of Allegations:
      • The complainant alleged general harassment and cruelty by the husband and his relatives.
      • The charge sheet did not specify any concrete or particular acts by the petitioners.

    Court’s Analysis

    Lack of Specific Allegations

    The High Court observed that the charge sheet contained only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. There were no specific instances or evidence indicating their direct involvement in any act of cruelty or harassment.

    Reference to Supreme Court Precedents

    The judgment relied heavily on several Supreme Court decisions, including:

    • Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022): The Supreme Court cautioned against prosecuting relatives of the husband based on vague or general allegations, emphasizing the need for specific accusations.
    • Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Highlighted the misuse of Section 498A and the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes.
    • Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010): Stressed the importance of scrutinizing complaints to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent relatives.
    • Maram Nirmala v. State of Telangana (2025): Reiterated that mere reference to family members without specific allegations should not result in criminal prosecution.

    Abuse of Legal Process

    The Court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not met. The Court also noted that such cases often arise from matrimonial discord and can be used as tools for personal vendetta.

    Section 504 IPC: Intentional Insult

    The Court analyzed the requirements for an offence under Section 504 IPC and found that the complaint did not specify any intentional insult or abusive language that could provoke a breach of peace. Mere allegations of abuse, without details, were deemed insufficient.

    Final Order

    • The criminal petition was allowed.
    • The proceedings against the petitioners in the pending criminal case were quashed.

    Broader Implications

    1. Protection Against False or Vague Allegations:
      • The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes.
    2. Need for Specific Evidence:
      • Courts require concrete and particularized allegations before proceeding against family members in such cases.
    3. Judicial Caution:
      • The decision urges lower courts to exercise caution and prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent relatives.

    Conclusion

    This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. It underscores the necessity for specific, evidence-based allegations and serves as a safeguard for innocent family members who might otherwise be drawn into protracted and baseless litigation.

    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:

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Clarifies Classification of Aluminum Profiles for Solar Panel Manufacturing

    CESTAT Chandigarh Clarifies Classification of Aluminum Profiles for Solar Panel Manufacturing

    Date: 29.08.2026

    Saatvik Green Energy Limited, a leading manufacturer of solar photovoltaic modules, recently secured a significant victory before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh. The case revolved around the customs classification and duty assessment of imported aluminum profiles used in solar panel manufacturingβ€”a dispute with far-reaching implications for the renewable energy sector and importers of industrial components.

    Background: The Dispute Over Aluminum Profiles

    Saatvik Green Energy imported β€œAluminum Hollow Profiles” for use in manufacturing solar PV modules. These were declared under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 76042100, which covers aluminum bars, rods, and profiles of aluminum alloys (hollow profiles). However, the commercial invoices described the goods as β€œAluminum Solar Frame.” Saatvik claimed that these profiles underwent substantial processing before being incorporated into finished solar modules.

    The Customs Department, after an audit, argued that the goods should be classified under CTH 76169990 (other articles of aluminum), not as hollow profiles. This reclassification would attract a higher basic customs duty (BCD) and deny the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The department issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty of nearly Rs. 6 crore, along with interest, penalties, and a hefty redemption fine.

    Key Legal Issues Examined

    The Tribunal considered several critical questions:

    1. Correct Classification: Should the imported goods be classified as hollow profiles (CTI 76042100) or as finished aluminum frames (CTH 76169990)?
    2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption: Was Saatvik entitled to the concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus for goods used in manufacturing solar PV modules?
    3. Applicability of Extended Limitation Period: Could the department invoke the extended period for demanding duty in a bona fide classification dispute?
    4. Sustainability of Penalties and Fines: Were confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties justified?

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Classification Must Reflect Goods as Imported

    The Tribunal emphasized that classification should be based on the goods’ objective characteristics at the time of importβ€”not their intended use or commercial description. The mere labeling of goods as β€œAluminum Solar Frame” in invoices was not conclusive. The Tribunal found:

    • The imported profiles, though cut to size, retained the essential character of hollow profiles.
    • Cutting profiles to shorter lengths is a standard industry practice and does not transform them into finished articles.
    • There was no evidence that the goods had become complete frames or articles of aluminum at the time of import.

    2. Specific vs. Residual Tariff Headings

    The Tribunal reiterated that a specific tariff heading (CTI 76042100 for profiles) prevails over a residual heading (CTH 76169990 for other articles of aluminum). Since the goods fit the definition of profiles, they could not be classified under the more general heading.

    3. Eligibility for Duty Exemption

    Saatvik had followed all procedural requirements for concessional duty, including providing end-use certificates. The Tribunal held that the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus was available for goods used in manufacturing solar PV modules, regardless of their precise classification within Chapter 76, as long as the end-use condition was satisfied.

    4. No Grounds for Penalties or Extended Limitation

    The Tribunal found no evidence of willful misstatement, suppression, or fraud. The dispute was purely interpretational. Therefore, extended limitation, penalties, and redemption fines were not sustainable.

    Final Order and Impact

    The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner’s order, holding:

    • The goods are classifiable under CTI 76042100 (aluminum hollow profiles).
    • Saatvik is eligible for the concessional duty benefit for imports made before 1 April 2022 (when the notification was amended).
    • All penalties, fines, and demands were quashed.

    This ruling provides clarity for importers of industrial components, especially in the renewable energy sector, reinforcing the principle that classification must be based on the goods’ condition at importβ€”not on commercial labels or intended use. It also underscores the importance of following procedural requirements to avail duty exemptions.

    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:

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA

    Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA

    Date: 27.08.2026

    A recent judgment by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Joydeep Roy & Anr. vs. Srijan Residency LLP & Ors. sheds light on the complexities of real estate transactions, contractual disputes, and the jurisdictional boundaries set by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications for homebuyers and developers.

    Background of the Case

    Joydeep Roy, an advocate, and a co-plaintiff, an assistant professor, decided to purchase a flat in the Royal Ganges Project developed by Srijan Residency LLP. After discussions, they booked a flat, paid the booking amount, and received a provisional allotment letter. They also secured a housing loan and paid the required stamp duty for registration.

    However, upon receiving the draft agreement for sale, the plaintiffs objected to several clauses they considered arbitrary and unlawful. These included:

    • The developer’s right to mortgage the property even after the buyer had paid for it.
    • Clauses allowing discontinuation of essential services (electricity, water, entry) for non-payment of maintenance.
    • A provision enabling the promoter or association to sell the flat if maintenance arrears exceeded Rs. 50,000.

    The plaintiffs requested the removal of these clauses, but the developer refused and subsequently cancelled the booking, prompting the plaintiffs to seek legal recourse.

    Legal Proceedings and Arguments

    Plaintiffs’ Stand

    The plaintiffs approached the Civil Court seeking an injunction to prevent the developer from creating third-party interests in the property. Their main arguments were:

    1. The contested clauses were against public policy and unfair to buyers.
    2. The cancellation of the booking was arbitrary and violated natural justice.
    3. The plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations and were entitled to relief under the Specific Relief Act.

    Defendants’ Stand

    The developer argued that:

    1. The suit was not maintainable in Civil Court due to Section 79 of the RERA Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining matters under RERA’s purview.
    2. The plaintiffs had already approached the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WB RERA), and thus could not simultaneously seek relief from the Civil Court.
    3. The developer retained the right to mortgage the property until ownership was transferred.

    Court’s Analysis and Judgment

    Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury examined the following key points:

    • Jurisdiction: Section 79 of the RERA Act clearly bars civil courts from adjudicating matters that fall under the authority of RERA. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patani reinforced this position.
    • Nature of Agreement: The court found that mere submission of a booking form and payment did not constitute a binding agreement, especially since the plaintiffs did not accept the draft agreement’s terms.
    • Plaintiffs’ Conduct: The plaintiffs had already approached WB RERA before filing the civil suit, indicating awareness of the appropriate forum for their grievance.

    The court dismissed the application, holding that the civil suit and subsequent appeal were not maintainable due to the statutory bar under RERA. However, it clarified that the merits of the case were not decided, and the plaintiffs could seek redressal before the appropriate forum.

    Key Takeaways for Homebuyers and Developers

    1. Jurisdiction Matters: Disputes related to real estate transactions covered by RERA must be addressed before the regulatory authority, not civil courts.
    2. Contractual Clarity: Buyers should carefully review all clauses in draft agreements and seek clarification or modification before making substantial payments.
    3. Remedies Available: While RERA provides a specialized forum for real estate disputes, buyers may have additional remedies under consumer protection laws, depending on the circumstances.
    4. Developers’ Obligations: Developers must ensure that contractual clauses comply with public policy and regulatory standards to avoid legal challenges.

    Conclusion

    The Joydeep Roy & Anr. vs. Srijan Residency LLP & Ors. case underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework governing real estate transactions in India. Both buyers and developers must be aware of their rights, obligations, and the appropriate forums for dispute resolution to ensure fair and transparent dealings.

    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:

  • Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award on Escalation and Loss of Profit: A Precedent on Contractual Damages and Judicial Review in Arbitration

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award on Escalation and Loss of Profit: A Precedent on Contractual Damages and Judicial Review in Arbitration

    Date: 27.08.2026

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Budhiraja Electricals vs. Public Works Department (PWD), Government of NCT of Delhi. This case revolved around the enforcement and challenge of an arbitral award arising from a construction contract dispute. The judgment provides valuable insights into the interpretation of escalation and loss of profit claims, the scope of arbitral awards, and the limited grounds for judicial interference under Indian arbitration law.

    Background of the Dispute

    • Parties Involved:
      • Budhiraja Electricals (electrical sub-contractor)
      • Public Works Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (employer)
      • M/s Parnika Commercial & Estate Pvt. Ltd. (main contractor)
    • Project: Construction of EDP Cell-cum-Referral Clinic/Administrative Block-cum-OPD Block and Additional Basement Parking at G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
    • Timeline:
      • Work started: 11 January 2006
      • Stipulated completion: 10 July 2008
      • Actual completion: 30 November 2011 (delay regularized without compensation)

    Origin of the Arbitration

    Disputes arose over:

    • Escalation claims under Clause 10CC of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)
    • Compensation for staff deployment and watch & ward during the extended period
    • Loss of turnover/profitability
    • Withheld amounts and interest

    The matter was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award favoring Budhiraja Electricals for several claims, including escalation and loss of profits.

    Legal Proceedings

    • Objection Petition: PWD challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, focusing on escalation (Claim 3) and loss of profits (Claim 6).
    • Enforcement Petition: Budhiraja Electricals sought enforcement of the award.

    Key Legal Issues and Arguments

    1. Escalation Under Clause 10CC (Claim 3)

    • PWD’s Argument: Escalation is only payable for work done within the stipulated contract period, not for the extended period, as per Clause 10CC.
    • Budhiraja Electricals’ Argument: Claimed damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act for the extended period, using Clause 10CC’s formula for quantification.

    2. Loss of Turnover/Profitability (Claim 6)

    • PWD’s Argument: No contractual basis for this claim; no evidence of actual loss or missed opportunities.
    • Budhiraja Electricals’ Argument: Prolongation of contract led to loss of anticipated profits, calculated using CPWD guidelines (15% of contract value).

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    Scope of Judicial Review

    The Court reiterated that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, judicial interference is limited to grounds such as conflict with public policy, patent illegality, or perversity. The Court does not act as an appellate body to re-examine facts or evidence unless the award is irrational or unsupported by evidence.

    Escalation Claim (Claim 3)

    • Finding: Clause 10CC explicitly restricts escalation to the stipulated contract period. The arbitrator erred by awarding escalation for the extended period without proof of actual loss, relying solely on a formula that was contractually inapplicable.
    • Result: The award for escalation beyond the stipulated period was set aside.

    Loss of Profit Claim (Claim 6)

    • Finding: The arbitrator granted damages based on a notional percentage (CPWD memo) without evidence of actual loss, missed opportunities, or financial detriment. The Court emphasized that damages must be proven, not presumed.
    • Result: The award for loss of profits was set aside.

    Interest on Claims

    • Finding: Since the principal claims (escalation and loss of profits) were set aside, the corresponding interest awards could not survive.

    Conclusion and Impact

    • The Court set aside the arbitral award to the extent it related to escalation for the extended period, loss of profits, and corresponding interest.
    • The remaining portions of the award, not challenged, remain enforceable.
    • The judgment reinforces the principle that arbitral awards must be based on contractual terms and supported by evidence, especially for damages and escalation claims.

    Key Takeaways for Contractors and Employers

    1. Strict Adherence to Contract Terms: Claims for escalation or damages must align with the express provisions of the contract.
    2. Proof of Actual Loss: Damages for loss of profits or escalation during extended periods require credible evidence, not just formulaic calculations.
    3. Limited Judicial Review: Courts will not re-examine facts unless the award is perverse, patently illegal, or contrary to public policy.
    4. Importance of Reasoned Awards: Arbitrators must provide clear, evidence-based reasoning for their decisions.

    This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for construction contracts and arbitration in India, highlighting the need for clarity in contract drafting and the evidentiary burden for claims beyond stipulated terms.

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

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

    Date: 27.08.2026

    The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on April 7, 2008, addressed the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dacoity with murder. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal principles involved, and the implications of the verdict.

    Background of the Case

    • Incident: On September 24, 1982, Tilak Raj returned home to find his wife, Kamlesh Kumari, being dragged by Raj Kumar @ Raju and three others, all armed with knives. The accused looted the house and murdered Kamlesh Kumari before fleeing.
    • Investigation: The police arrested six individuals, including Raj Kumar @ Raju, and charged them under Sections 396 (dacoity with murder), 412 (receiving stolen property), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
    • Trial Court Verdict: The II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, convicted four accused under Section 396, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Two accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
    • Appeals: The High Court of Uttaranchal upheld the convictions. Raj Kumar @ Raju appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Minimum Number of Accused for Dacoity

    • Section 391 IPC: Defines dacoity as a robbery committed by five or more persons acting conjointly.
    • Section 396 IPC: Prescribes punishment for dacoity with murder, requiring the involvement of at least five persons.
    • Supreme Court’s Analysis: The Court emphasized that conviction under Section 396 is not sustainable if fewer than five persons are found guilty, unless there is clear evidence that more than five participated but only some could be identified.

    2. Acquittal of Co-Accused

    • The trial court acquitted two out of six accused without finding that unidentified persons were also involved. Thus, only four were convicted, failing the statutory requirement for dacoity.

    3. Precedents Cited

    • The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Ram Lakhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Saktu & Anr. v. State of U.P., reinforcing that at least five persons must be established as participants for a conviction under dacoity provisions.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    • Acquittal: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 396, IPC, and ordered his immediate release, as the essential ingredient of five or more persons was not met.
    • Legal Principle: The Court clarified that unless the presence of five or more persons is unquestionably established, a conviction for dacoity (and by extension, dacoity with murder) cannot stand.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Strict Adherence to Statutory Requirements: The case underscores the necessity for courts to strictly adhere to the statutory definition of dacoity.
    2. Importance of Evidence: Convictions cannot be based on assumptions or incomplete identification; clear evidence of the number of participants is crucial.
    3. Guidance for Future Trials: The judgment serves as a precedent for lower courts in interpreting group crime provisions under the IPC.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Raj Kumar @ Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal is a landmark in criminal jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that criminal liability must be established beyond reasonable doubt and in strict conformity with statutory requirements. This decision not only acquitted the appellant but also clarified the legal standards for convictions under dacoity-related offences.

    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:

  • Karnataka High Court on Quashing FIRs and Charge Sheets Against Juveniles in Multiple Udupi District Cases

    Karnataka High Court on Quashing FIRs and Charge Sheets Against Juveniles in Multiple Udupi District Cases

    Date: 27.08.2026

    This article provides a detailed overview of a recent set of criminal petitions adjudicated by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, on December 1, 2025. The cases involve two minors, Eashan Shetty and Yayin Shetty, represented by their mother, Vinutha Shetty, who sought to quash multiple FIRs and charge sheets filed against them in various police stations in Udupi District. The petitions were heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz.

    Background of the Cases

    The minors were implicated in several criminal cases registered at different police stations, including Shirva, Kundapura, and Manipal. The petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the complaints, FIRs, and charge sheets pending before the Juvenile Justice Board and other courts in Udupi.

    Summary of Petitions

    1. CRL.P No. 10064/2025 (Shirva Police Station)
      • Allegation: Theft of a two-wheeler (KA20-HC-1654) parked in front of Asha Complex, Bantkal, Shirva Village.
      • Outcome:
        • The court found that the vehicle was recovered at the instance of Petitioner No. 1 (Eashan Shetty), and the voluntary statement of both petitioners could not be used as substantial evidence against Petitioner No. 2 (Yayin Shetty).
        • Result: Proceedings against Petitioner No. 2 were quashed; proceedings against Petitioner No. 1 continue.
    2. CRL.P No. 10038/2025 (Kundapura Police Station)
      • Allegation: Attempted break-in and robbery at Sai Dream Car Showroom, Beejadi Village, using an iron rod and hammer. The petitioners were named in the FIR and apprehended with incriminating items.
      • Outcome:
        • The court found a prima facie case against both petitioners based on direct identification and recovery of evidence.
        • Result: Petition to quash proceedings was dismissed; the case will proceed.
    3. CRL.P No. 10167/2025 (Manipal Police Station)
      • Allegation: Involvement in a public quarrel and nuisance near Perampalli Church, Shivalli Village, following a dispute over car hire charges. The FIR contained vague and omnibus allegations.
      • Outcome:
        • The court noted insufficient material and lack of specific allegations against the petitioners.
        • Result: Proceedings against both petitioners were quashed.
    4. CRL.P No. 10332/2025 (Kundapura Police Station)
      • Allegation: Theft of a Honda Dio Scooty (KA-20-EC-4314) from the complainant, Ganesha, with the vehicle recovered from the petitioners. The incident was linked to the attempted robbery in the previous case.
      • Outcome:
        • The court found a prima facie case and refused to quash the proceedings.
        • Result: Petition dismissed; the case will proceed.

    Legal Principles and Court’s Reasoning

    • Quashing of Proceedings: The court emphasized that proceedings can only be quashed when there is a clear lack of evidence or when allegations are vague and unspecific. In cases where direct evidence or recovery is present, the court is reluctant to interfere at the preliminary stage.
    • Juvenile Justice Considerations: The court ensured that the rights of minors were protected, especially when evidence was insufficient or when the only basis was a voluntary statement not corroborated by other material.

    Implications for Juvenile Justice in Karnataka

    • Protection of Minors: The judgment reinforces the principle that minors should not face criminal proceedings without substantial evidence.
    • Due Process: The court’s approach highlights the importance of due process and careful scrutiny of evidence, especially in cases involving children in conflict with law.
    • Early Disposal: The court directed lower courts to ensure early disposal of pending cases involving juveniles, recognizing the need for swift justice in such matters.

    Conclusion

    The High Court’s rulings in these petitions underscore the balance between upholding the law and safeguarding the rights of minors. By quashing proceedings where evidence was lacking and allowing cases with prima facie evidence to proceed, the court has set a precedent for careful judicial scrutiny in juvenile justice cases in Karnataka.

    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 Affirms Acquittal Under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

    Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal Under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

    Date: 27.08.2026

    The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, upheld the acquittal of Jarooparam, who was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the reasoning behind the Court’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    On May 11, 2004, law enforcement authorities intercepted Jarooparam and two others at Bhilkhanda Square, seizing 7.2 kg of opium from their possession. The authorities prepared two samples of 30 grams each from the seized material and marked them for evidence. Jarooparam was arrested, and a complaint was filed under Sections 8/18 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

    High Court Proceedings

    Jarooparam appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which acquitted him. The High Court found several procedural lapses:

    1. Improper Disposal of Seized Property: The bulk quantity of opium was not disposed of by the Executive Magistrate as required by law. Instead, after sampling, the remaining contraband was returned to the investigating officer without proper judicial authorization or documentation.
    2. Doubtful Evidence Handling: The prosecution failed to produce the bulk quantity of opium during the trial, raising doubts about the authenticity of the samples presented as evidence.
    3. Questionable Confessional Statement: The accused’s confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded while he was in police custody, and there were allegations that his signature was obtained on blank papers. The High Court found this confession unreliable.
    4. Hostile Witnesses: Independent witnesses presented by the prosecution turned hostile, further weakening the case.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

    The Union of India appealed the High Court’s acquittal to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the following points:

    • Mandatory Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act: The law requires that seized narcotics be disposed of only after a Magistrate’s order. In this case, there was no such order or application for disposal, and the prosecution failed to explain the fate of the bulk contraband.
    • Evidentiary Gaps: The absence of the bulk opium at trial and the lack of proper documentation undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the destruction or disposal of evidence must be properly authorized and documented to maintain the chain of custody and evidentiary value.
    • Unreliable Confession: The confession was not considered voluntary, as it was obtained while the accused was in custody and without proper safeguards.

    Final Outcome

    The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Union of India, affirming the acquittal of Jarooparam. The Court highlighted the importance of strict procedural compliance in narcotics cases, given the severe penalties involved.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Strict Adherence to Procedure: Law enforcement must strictly follow procedures for seizure, sampling, and disposal of narcotics to ensure the integrity of evidence.
    2. Judicial Oversight: Disposal or destruction of seized contraband must be authorized by a competent court, with proper documentation and notice to the accused.
    3. Voluntariness of Confession: Confessions obtained in custody without safeguards are likely to be disregarded by courts.
    4. Role of Independent Witnesses: Hostile or unreliable witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.

    This judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role of due process and evidentiary safeguards in criminal prosecutions under the NDPS 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.

    Handy Download:

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi