Sadalaw Publications

Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Read More »

Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra:

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: NITU KUMARI 26 Mar 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9792 OF 2023 Kunal Kamra …PetitionerVersusUnion of India …Respondents Date Of Judgment: January 31, 2024Presiding judges:Justice Gautam PatelJustice A.S. ChandurkarJustice Dr. Neela Gokhale Introduction Who is Kunal Kamra? Kunal Kamra is an Indian stand-up comedian and political satirist. In his shows, he quips about the peculiarities of life, popular culture, the economy, politics, and big business.Born and reared in Mumbai, Kamra is often embroiled in controversy due to his polarizing remarks about BJP politicians, especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In 2017, he started a show called Shut Up Ya Kunal, in which he had informal discussions with politicians and activists from both sides. He’s previously made headlines for a mid-air confrontation with news anchor Arnab Goswami in 2020. Who is Eknath Shinde? Eknath Sambhaji Shinde, an Indian politician who was born on February 9, 1964, has been serving under Devendra Fadnavis as Maharashtra‘s Deputy Chief Minister since December 2024 alongside Ajit Pawar. He has been the head of the Shiv Sena since February 2023 and was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra from June 2022 to December 2024. He was an MLA for the Thane seat from 2004 to 2009 and has been a member of the Legislative Assembly since 2009 for the Kopri-Pachpakhadi constituency. Factual Background When Kunal Kamra performed at the Habitat Studio at the Unicontinental Hotel in the Khar neighborhood of Mumbai, he called Shiv Sena leader and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a “traitor” and proceeded to sing a parody about him. Kamra described Shinde’s 2022 mutiny against his then-boss Uddhav Thackeray using a modified version of a Hindi song from the film Dil To Pagal Hai. According to PTI, which cited the police, a number of Shiv Sena employees allegedly vandalized the studio and the hotel on Sunday night. Due to Kamra’s alleged defamatory remarks against Shinde, the Mumbai Police filed a formal complaint against him on Monday. According to the PTI report, Shiv Sena official Rahul Kanal and 11 other people were also taken into custody by the police for looting the hotel. According to ANI, the Mahayuti ruling alliance has claimed that the Shiv Sena, led by Uddhav Thackeray, bribed Kamra. Kamra’s comments have been supported by the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance, which has criticized the state administration for the collapse of law and order and brought up the subject of freedom of speech. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolition team took hammers to the Habitat Studio on Monday. The H West ward staff was instructed to perform an inspection by BMC Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani following a conversation with State Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik. Maharashtra’s State Home Minister, Yogesh Kadam, said Monday that the legislation will be strictly implemented and that Kamra’s whereabouts were being investigated. What is the Kunal Kamra–Eknath Shinde Controversy all about? During a recent stand-up show, comedian Kunal Kamra is once again at the center of a political storm after his recent performance in Mumbai. During his latest show ‘Naya Bharat’ at the Habitat Comedy Club in Khar, he humorously parodied a popular Shah Rukh Khan Hindi song by calling Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde a “gaddar” (traitor). The comment made reference to Shinde’s 2022 political rebellion, which led to the dissolution of the Shiv Sena party. In a spoof of a song from Dil To Pagal Hai, Kamra sang:“Meri nazar se tum dekho to gaddar nazar wo aaye, haaye.” After being posted on social media, the video swiftly gained popularity and attracted the attention of political supporters. A case was filed against comedian Kunal Kamra after a video of him surfaced showing him taking a jibe at Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde for switching sides. What was the reaction of Eknath Shinde? The joke was taken seriously by the Shiv Sena section led by Eknath Shinde. In a police complaint, Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel called for Kunal Kamra‘s arrest and an apology from the public. He threatened to hold rallies and deny Kamra the freedom to “move freely” in Mumbai unless he apologized within two days. The Habitat Studio in Mumbai, where Kamra had performed, was vandalized by Shiv Sena supporters in outrage. As a result, more than 40 Sena members were arrested by the Mumbai Police for unlawful assembly and property damage. Kunal Kamra’s Response “Not Against the Law… I Don’t Fear”: Kunal Kamra’s Initial Response to the Eknath Shinde Joke Scandal. In a forceful initial statement regarding the uproar he sparked, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra said he does not “fear this mob” that damaged his show’s venue and refused to apologize for his traitorous “joke” about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on Monday. Kamra defended his act, arguing that comedy and satire are essential tools in democracy. In response to the controversy, he posted an image of

Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: Read More »

N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. MAHI SINHA 25 Mar 2025 Updated: 24th march,2025 The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) elected Senior Advocate N Hariharan as its president with 2967 votes. On March 21, the elections took place. Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal received 2880 votes to take second place.Senior Advocates Vivek Sood and Abhijat received 339 and 1429 votes, respectively.Sacchin Puri, a Senior Advocate, received 4515 votes to become the DHCBA’s vice president. Advocates Shyam Sharma and Inderbir Singh Alagh, two other contenders, received 1895 and 1080 votes, respectively. The DHCBA Secretary, advocate Vikram Singh Panwar, was chosen with 4389 votes.Advocate Kunal Malhotra was chosen as the Joint Secretary with 3381 votes, and Advocate Kanika Singh was elected Treasurer with 4493 votes. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Read More »

PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized.

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. MAHI SINHA 25 Mar 2025 Updated: 23th march,2025 The Supreme Court of India recently noted in addressing a challenge to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)’s retention of an accused person’s electronic items, documents, etc. that Section 8(3)(a) (which deals with continuation of retention) does not require that the accused be named in the complaint. Instead, the existence of a pending complaint claiming the commission of an offense under Section 3 of the Act is sufficient. “Clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA in a Court…For attracting clause (a), it is enough if a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is pending. It is not necessary for the applicability of clause (a) that the person affected by the order under Section 8(3) must be shown as an accused in the complaint. The complaint under Section 44 will always relate to the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The order of cognizance is of the offence and not of the accused or the offender”, observed a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh. The case’s facts are as follows: in 2017, an ECIR was filed against the respondent and others. During the search, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) confiscated cash, documents, and a variety of electronic gadgets. Following an order under PMLA Section 17(4) (which deals with the retention of seized or frozen property), the Adjudicating Authority issued a confirmation order under Section 8(3) on April 4, 2018. The Special Court then took cognizance of the case, which was filed under Section 44 of the PMLA, on February 19, 2018. As stated in revised Section 8(3)(a) of the PMLA, the Appellate Authority and the High Court held in an appeal filed by the respondent that the order under Section 17(4) PMLA, which was confirmed on April 4, 2018, would expire after the ninety-day time had passed. In an appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant-authority contested the High Court’s ruling. It argued that Section 8, as it was in effect from May 14, 2015, to April 18, 2018, was applicable despite periodic amendments. Interestingly, there was no time limit in Section 8(3)(a) until April 18, 2018. It stated that while any court procedures pertaining to a PMLA offense are pending, the Adjudicating Authority’s order to seize the record shall remain in effect. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the order of detention would remain in effect for a maximum of 90 days “or the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA” if Section 8, which was in effect from April 19, 2018, to March 19, 2019, was applied. On the other hand, the respondent argued that he was not named in the ED’s complaint under Section 44 PMLA. He said that even though the confiscated documents, electronic materials, and other objects were unrelated to the complaint, the ED had kept them for an extended period of time. The respondent called the ongoing retention “unjust” and added that, as of right now, ED had neither used nor relied upon the documents in the complaint. The Court noted that Section 8, which was applicable in this case, was in effect from May 14, 2015, to April 18, 2018. Although the defendant acknowledged that this provision applied, he contended that there were no current proceedings because he was not listed as an accused in the complaint submitted under Section 44 PMLA [as required by Section 8(3)]. However, the Court pointed out that the Special Court was still considering the complaint under Section 44 PMLA at the time the decision under Section 8(3) was issued, and that the complaint served as the foundation for the offense under Section 3 of the PMLA being taken into cognizance. Additionally, the complaint was submitted based on the ECIR, which listed the respondent as an accused party. According to the Court, for the purposes of Section 8(3)(a) PMLA, the respondent did not need to be listed as an accused party in the complaint. “When an order under sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the PMLA was passed, in view of clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 8 as applicable on that day, the order was to continue till the disposal of the complaint”, it added. When the judgment dated 04.04.2018 was issued under Section 8(3), the Court held that the provision was not relevant in the conditions stated in the High Court and Appellate Authority’s application of the amended Section 8, which went into effect on April 19, 2018. But if the revised clause was applicable, it also said that the order under Section 8(3) had to stay

PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Read More »

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others MAHI SINHA 25 Mar 2025 Updated: 23th march,2025 Thirteen of the sixty-three Bangladeshi nationals held in the Matia transit camp in Assam have been deported, the Supreme Court was notified on Friday, March 21. The statement was taken from Assam’s affidavit in a case involving the detention and deportation of foreigners in Assam by a bench consisting of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. It is pointed out that on the basis of document at Annexure ‘B’ that out of the list which is referred in our order dated February 4, 2025, 13 Bangladeshi Nationals have been deported to Bangladesh”, the Court recorded in its order. Regarding 63 people in the transit camps whose nationality was verified, the Court had questioned the inaction on February 4, 2025. The Bangladeshi High Commission is now working on the verification procedure for the remaining detainees, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court on Friday. Nationality status verification (NSV) papers were typically given to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on February 14, 2025, with reminders sent on that same day, according to a chart included in an affidavit submitted by the Assam government. Annexed to the affidavit was a handing over and taking over letter that verified the deportation of 13 Bangladeshi citizens. By April 30, 2025, the Assam government was ordered by the court to provide a new affidavit outlining the NSVs’ current status and any upcoming deportations. On May 6, 2025, the case will be heard again. The fate of those whose nationality is still unknown is another important matter before the Court. The panel had previously ordered the Union of India to provide an explanation of its strategies for handling individuals whose nationalities are unclear but who have been proclaimed foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals. The Court gave the center until the end of April 2025 to respond, and on May 6, 2025, it will also be taken into consideration. BACKGROUND For neglecting to start the deportation procedure for people whose nationalities were known, the Assam government was chastised by the Court on February 4, 2025. The state might deport such people to the capital city of the respective country, Justice Oka said, expressing unhappiness with the state’s assertion that the inmates’ foreign addresses were unavailable. He highlighted that indefinite confinement without further action was inappropriate and chastised the state for its negligence. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat brought up the fact that deportations were halted because officials just concluded that people were not Indian nationals without verifying their true nationality throughout the hearing. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves went on to say that Bangladesh was illegally detaining and effectively stateless some people by refusing to recognize them as its nationals. According to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, there were two types of people: those whose nationality was known and those whose identity was yet unknown. Although the Court pointed out that deporting people in the first category was not difficult, it ordered the Union to make clear how it would handle the second category. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Read More »

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation NITU KUMARI 24 Mar 2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONWrit Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023 Vishal Tiwari …PETITIONER Versus Union of India …RESPONDENTS Date Of Judgment: January 3, 2024Case Citation: 2024 INSC 3Presiding Judges:Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. ChandrachudJustice Jamshed B. PardiwalaJustice Manoj Misra Factual Background: In a report released on January 24, 2023, the American investment research firm Hindenburg Research accused the Adani Group of neglecting to disclose important financial information, manipulating stock prices, and breaking SEBI regulations. Investor wealth was eroded as a result of this revelation, which caused the share price of the Adani Group of Companies to drop significantly. The Supreme Court of India received a number of petitions addressing the need to look into the Adani Group and shield investors from market shocks. In its ruling on March 2, 2023, the Court ordered SEBI to look into claims that the Adani Group may have violated regulations. To evaluate the issue and suggest actions to improve investor protection, an expert group was also formed. The petitioners asked for the creation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to supervise the inquiry and attempted to revoke some of the amendments made to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investments) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“SEBI Regulations”). The expert committee turned in its findings on May 6, 2023, and SEBI filed a status report on August 25, 2023. Of the twenty-four investigations, SEBI has finished twenty-two as of the judgment date. Issue Of The Case: Whether the Supreme Court should transfer the investigation into the Adani Group from SEBI to a Special Investigation Team (“SIT”)? What is the scope of judicial review over the regulatory functions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”)? Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that courts have little authority to meddle in SEBI’s regulatory operations. The Court found no justification for rescinding the SEBI Regulations modifications. The Court decided that there was no need to move the inquiry to a SIT because there was no evident violation of SEBI’s regulations. The Court ordered SEBI and the Union Government to take into account the expert committee’s recommendations for fortifying the regulatory framework. It was Chief Justice Chandrachud who wrote the court’s ruling. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court noted that it cannot judge whether rules created by statutory regulators such as SEBI are correct in its capacity as an appellate body. Judicial review is restricted to determining whether a policy is obviously arbitrary or infringes upon fundamental rights, constitutional requirements, or statutory legislation. The Court further ruled that courts should respect the knowledge of regulators who have taken expert opinions into account when creating their policies, especially in technical areas like economic and financial concerns. The Supreme Court maintained SEBI’s rules, ruling that the agency had adequately outlined the development and justification of its regulatory structure and that the processes it employed were neither unlawful nor capricious. During its probe of the Adani Group, the Supreme Court found no evidence of regulatory failure by SEBI. The Court noted that it should exercise its power to transfer investigations under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India only in extreme situations. Unless the investigating authority conducts the investigation in a clear, purposeful, and deliberate manner, the Court cannot step in. Conclusion: The case of Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India revolves around the allegations of stock market manipulation and regulatory violations by the Adani Group, as reported by Hindenburg Research. The Supreme Court of India ultimately concluded that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) did not lack efficiency in conducting the investigation and upheld the validity of the investigation held by SEBI. The court also clarified that its power to enter the regulatory domain and question SEBI’s delegated legislation powers is limited. Additionally, the court directed SEBI to complete the pending investigations preferably within three months. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Read More »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ The Dhanashree Verma – Yuzvendra Chahal Saga: A Legal Perspective on Alimony and Marital Disputes Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal MAHI SINHA 24 Mar 2025 Updated: 22th march,2025 Farmers’ leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is reportedly unlawfully arrested from the ongoing farmers’ protest, filed a habeas corpus petition, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court sent notice to the Punjab Government late in the evening. In the order, Justice Manisha Batra made the following statement while notifying the Punjab Government and the Director General of Police:“This petition has been received at 6:45 pm making prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of detainee Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is the farmer leader of Sanyukt Kisan Morcha (non-political), who is in illegal custody of the respondents.” Dallewal, who has been on a hunger strike for over a hundred days, and other farmer leaders attended the seventh session of negotiations with a central delegation headed by the Union Agriculture Minister on March 19, 2025, according to the request submitted by farmer activist Gurmukh Singh. The Punjab Police stopped Dallewal’s convoy as it was making its way back from the meeting to the ongoing protest site at the boundaries of Shambhu and Khanauri in Mohali, close to the Jagatpura neighborhood. Conflicts between farmers and the police resulted from the detainee and other leaders being arrested without warning or justification, it further stated. According to the request, 300–400 additional members of the farmer association were also missing. The petitioner asked for instructions to bring the detainee to court and prayed for any other remedies the court saw appropriate. The issue has been scheduled for additional consideration on March 24, 2025. The plea was filed by attorneys Gurmohan Preet Singh, Angrej Singh, and Kanwarjit Singh. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Read More »

Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ The Dhanashree Verma – Yuzvendra Chahal Saga: A Legal Perspective on Alimony and Marital Disputes Daughter-In-Law Integral Part Of Family, Entitled To Compassionate Appointment: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court NITU KUMARI 24 Mar 2025 Civil Appeal No. 3616 of 2024 RAJU NAIDU … AppellantVersusRESPONDENTS COURT, SC … Respondents Date Of Judgment: March 21, 2025Presiding Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala Justice R. Mahadevan Background Of The Case: The crux of the problem is in Pondicherry‘s ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties. The appellant Raju Naidu‘s claim to the ‘B’ Schedule property was based on a sale agreement with the original owner that was executed during ongoing legal processes regarding the property’s title. Issue Of The Case: Whether a party who enters into a real estate transaction knowing that litigation is still pending is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? What is Section 53A Of Transfer Of Property Act 1882? 53A. Part performance.—Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty,and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract,and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. What is the Doctrine of Lis Pendens? The doctrine of Lis Pendens prohibits parties from undermining court proceedings by property transfers by stating that transactions undertaken while a lawsuit is active are subject to the resolution of that lawsuit. The transferee must act in good faith in order to be protected under Section 53A. This good faith is undermined when one enters into a deal knowing that there are ongoing conflicts. By preventing the transferee from asserting Section 53A protection, knowledge of pending litigation acts as constructive notice. Precedent Analysis: Giriyappa & Anr. vs. Kamalamma & Ors. 2024In this case, the Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the sale agreement and meet these conditions. As a result, they could not claim protection under Section 53A. The petition was dismissed. The Court outlined the conditions for invoking Section 53A: A written and signed contract for transferring immovable property that specifies the terms of the transfer. The transferee must have taken or retained possession of the property in part-performance of the contract. The transferee must have performed or be willing to perform their contractual obligations. Judgment: A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal against the Karnataka High Court‘s decision, which upheld the rulings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. These courts had ruled in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, declaring title and granting recovery of possession. The Supreme Court ruled that a transferee who enters into a property agreement knowing of ongoing litigation is not entitled to protection under Section 53A. The Court underlined that the rights granted by such an arrangement are not superior to those of the original transferor. It said that any transfer made during litigation is subject to the resolution of that action due to the application of the doctrine of lis pendens. Conclusion: The Supreme Court‘s ruling emphasizes how important it is to conduct extensive due diligence before purchasing real estate. Since entering into agreements with knowledge of ongoing litigation excludes protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, parties must make sure that properties are free of legal problems before moving further. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home

Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Read More »

The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025.

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ The Dhanashree Verma – Yuzvendra Chahal Saga: A Legal Perspective on Alimony and Marital Disputes The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. MAHI SINHA 24 Mar 2025 Updated: 21th march,2025 The Supreme Court declined to impede the execution of the Union Government‘s 2025 Haj Policy, which was formulated after consulting with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Several Writ Petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court contesting the Haj Policy, 2025. The petitioners, who were Haj Group Organisers (“HGOs”), contested the distribution of Haj pilgrim quotas under the Haj-2025 Policy, claiming that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. According to them, certain HGOs received disproportionately fewer pilgrims than others, making the distribution unfair. The bench made up of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh approved the arrangement after the petitioner’s attorney told the court that quota redistribution among the three HGOs had been done for a more equitable allocation and that different HGOs were allowed to submit final Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) by 20.03.2025 in accordance with the Union’s notice dated 18.03.2015, which outlined CHGO (Combined HGOs) terms and internal quota distribution. Additionally, the Court urged lead and non-lead HGOs to transfer excess pilgrims to those with smaller allotments. The Court recognized that there are frequently initial difficulties and irregularities while implementing a new policy, such as Haj-2025, and stated that the system of equal allocation among the HGOs would resolve the matter. “We are not inclined to further intervene with the Haj-2025 Policy’s execution at this time, as the current petitions do not contest the policy and its current implementation has already taken shape. The court stated that the actions already taken in our order of 06.03.2025 and in paragraph 5 of this ruling deserve the resolution of these issues.” The Court demonstrated restraint by promoting a solution based on equity and collaboration across HGOs rather than meddling in the policy’s execution. “In such consideration, it would, of course, follow that the interests of all stakeholders are kept in mind. The most important beneficiaries of the policy are the pilgrims, whose religious interests are the basis of the policy. Apart from these, commercial interests of the HGOs are also to be considered, for which the instant Writ Petitions have been filed. It would go without saying that all these interests would be kept in mind by the policymakers in its approach to implementation of the Haj policies in the future.”, the court observed. Since the Court was challenging the policy’s implementation rather than the policy itself, it declined to get involved in the policy’s execution but made it clear that the parties would be free to present their arguments in the proper forum regarding any future discrimination or other problems with the Haj policies’ implementation. The applicants were free to use the legal remedy, but any other intervention applications that raised further concerns about the policy and its application were rejected as unmaintainable. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. Read More »

On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees.

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ The Dhanashree Verma – Yuzvendra Chahal Saga: A Legal Perspective on Alimony and Marital Disputes Daughter-In-Law Integral Part Of Family, Entitled To Compassionate Appointment: Andhra Pradesh High Court Decoding Nagpur violence: Aurangzeb Tomb Row : 69 Rioters Arrested,Section 144 Imposed Six Supreme Court Judges Will Lead NALSA’s Legal Aid and Humanitarian Assistance Mission to Manipur Relief Camps On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. MAHI SINHA 23 Mar 2025 Updated: 22th march,2025 Who are Rohingya Refugees? The Rohingya are an ethnic, predominantly Muslim minority group from Rakhine State in Myanmar. They have faced persecution and discrimination for decades, with the Myanmar government denying them citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law, effectively rendering them stateless. Most of the 40,000 Rohingya who reside in slums and detention camps in India, including Jammu, Hyderabad, Nuh, and Delhi, lack proper documentation. In accordance with Indian legislation, Rohingyas are not considered refugees in India but rather illegal immigrants. Indian law states that undocumented immigrants are not considered refugees. India does not adhere to the United Nations concept of non-refoulement and hindrance to removal because it is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. If they don’t fit the host nation’s legal definition of a legitimate refugee, illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to be expelled. Court’s View: Today, the Supreme Court of India scheduled a hearing on a number of petitions and public interest lawsuits concerning the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees on May 8. The ruling came from a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented petitioners in one of the petitions, argued during the hearing that the Myanmar government had declared Rohingya refugees to be stateless people after they had been the victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar. But they want to be sent “in shackles” back to the nation that won’t acknowledge them as citizens. He requested permission to submit a second affidavit and told the court that significant changes had occurred since the case’s last hearing. The counsel then cited an order dated May 11, 2018, issued by the Court in the current case, to emphasize that the Committee had submitted a report after the Court had instructed it to look into the living conditions of Rohingya refugees. He asked the court to order a legal services authority, or any other body, to look into the Rohingya refugees’ current living conditions because they have gotten worse. However, the bench decided not to issue an order to that effect at this time. When a respondent’s lawyer said that there are roughly 18–19 cases on the matter overall, with 11–12 of those cases being listed before the bench today, Justice Kant stated that the Court would tag them all together. By postponing the case until May 8, the bench allowed each petitioner to submit any further affidavits and supporting documentation that would be needed for a fair and efficient resolution of the case. A plea to admit Rohingya refugee children to Delhi schools was recently dismissed by the Supreme Court, which noted that the children should first approach the relevant government institutions. The youngsters will have the right to petition the Delhi High Court if they were later refused admission, the Court stated. The Court stated that all children should get an education free from discrimination, but that first the Rohingya families’ residency status needed to be determined. This was in response to another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought government subsidies and school admissions for Rohingya refugees. However, this appeal was later dismissed in light of a similar order, in which the court stated that it preferred that Rohingya children apply for admission to schools first. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court

Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra:

N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized.

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation

Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal

Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025.

On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees.

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info