June 11, 2025

Trending Today Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE CASE LAW Allahabad High Court Grants Relief to BBC Journalist in Mosque Demolition FIR and Passport NOC Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 Justice Madhav J Jamdar of the Bombay High Court cites extended working hours, late-night drafting, and weekend hearings as causes for the delay in uploading a long-awaited property judgment. Extended Workload Delays Judgment Upload at the Bombay High Court Justice Madhav J Jamdar of the Bombay High Court recently clarified the delay in uploading a judgment delivered five months earlier in the case of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. Although pronounced on December 19, 2024, the judgment was only uploaded on May 30, 2025, due to mounting case backlog. Reasons Behind the Delay in Uploading the Judgment Justice Jamdar pointed to extended court sessions, late-night order drafting, and consistent work during weekends and holidays. He stated that he frequently worked 2 to 2.5 hours after court hours, often leaving chambers by 10:30 to 11:30 PM and reviewing case files at home until 2 AM. “I regularly preside beyond official hours, sign orders late into the night, study case materials each morning, and work during weekends to manage the backlog,” he explained in the order published on the court’s website. Case Background: Property Dispute Dating Back to 1986 The bench was considering appeals linked to an execution order involving possession of property in a case originally filed in 1986 for specific performance of an agreement dated December 24, 1984. During the litigation, the judgment-debtor executed eight registered sale deeds between May 7 and August 31, 1987, transferring ownership to third parties. Execution of 1990 Decree Challenged by Subsequent Purchasers On November 30, 1990, the trial court ordered specific performance, requiring the defendant to execute a sale deed and hand over possession. However, the subsequent purchasers pendente lite resisted this. In response, the plaintiff submitted an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The executing court granted the application, and the decision was upheld on appeal. High Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens The appellants argued that their registered title overrode the decree since they acquired the property before the decree was issued. However, the High Court rejected this, affirming that the sales occurred after the lawsuit began on April 28, 1986. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens, under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, applied. The Court emphasized that the 1990 decree explicitly ordered a sale deed and vacant possession in favor of the plaintiff, and that the pendente lite purchasers had no enforceable right. Bombay Amendment and Execution Rules Interpretation Justice Jamdar further examined objections under Order XXI Rules 97–106 CPC in light of the Bombay Amendment. He dismissed claims that the omission of Rule 102 allowed pendente lite purchasers to bypass the decree. The amended Rule 98(2) directs the Court to grant possession to decree-holders if the obstruction is proven to come from a transferee during pending litigation. Decree Validity and Supreme Court Precedent The High Court also rejected the argument that the 1990 decree was invalid. Justice Jamdar stressed that it was issued by a competent court following due process. Accepting the appellant’s view, he warned, would undermine the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami. Final Verdict: Appeals Dismissed and Possession Upheld The Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the appellants had no independent right to challenge execution. Their interests were deemed fully subordinate to those of the decree-holder. The interim relief provided during the appeal process was extended for an additional three months from the date of the uploaded judgment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »