sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Case law

Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA Reha Bhargav Sep 29, 2025 Introduction The case Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. dealt with the long-standing constitutional tussle between the elected Government of Delhi and the Union Government over control of “services,” i.e., the bureaucracy. Article 239AA grants Delhi a unique status as a Union Territory with an elected legislature. The key question was whether the Delhi Government has power over services, or whether this authority rests with the Lieutenant Governor (LG), acting on behalf of the Union Government. On 11 May 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Delhi Government has both legislative and executive control over services, except for public order, police, and land. The judgment significantly reinforced the principles of representative democracy and federalism in the governance of Delhi. Background Delhi is a Union Territory but has a legislative assembly under Article 239AA. Tensions arose between the elected Delhi Government and the LG, particularly regarding the appointment, transfer, and disciplinary control of civil servants. After the Aam Aadmi Party won a massive mandate in 2015, the LG frequently bypassed or overruled the elected government’s decisions. Notifications and circulars issued by the Union Government further restricted Delhi’s powers, leading to governance deadlock. In 2018, a Constitution Bench clarified some issues but left ambiguity about “services.” The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench to determine whether Entry 41 of the State List (services) falls under Delhi’s control. Key Developments Petitioner (GNCTD) argued that Article 239AA empowers the Delhi Government to control all matters in the State List except police, public order, and land. Services are part of Entry 41 of the State List and not excluded, hence within Delhi’s domain. They contended that excluding services would cripple representative democracy. Respondent (Union of India) argued that Delhi is a Union Territory, and ultimate control rests with the President through the LG. They claimed that Delhi cannot invoke Entry 41 since it lacks a State Public Service Commission, and central control over services is necessary for national interest and security. Issues Whether the Delhi Government has legislative and executive control over services under Entry 41 of the State List? Whether control over services lies exclusively with the Union Government through the LG? Current Status (Judgment) The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Delhi Government. The Court held that: Services fall under Entry 41 of the State List, and since they are not excluded by Article 239AA, Delhi has legislative and executive power over them. Civil servants must be accountable to the elected government, not the LG. The LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi Council of Ministers in all matters within the legislative competence of Delhi. The Union Government cannot control services except for police, public order, and land. Conclusion The judgment marked a turning point in Delhi’s governance structure by affirming the democratic mandate of its elected representatives. By ruling that the Delhi Government controls services (excluding police, public order, and land), the Supreme Court upheld principles of federalism and accountability of the executive to the legislature. The verdict curtailed the LG’s interference in administrative matters and strengthened representative democracy in the National Capital Territory. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA Read More »

Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA Sep 29, 2025 Introduction The case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (PVVNL) vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. raised crucial questions on the treatment of electricity dues in the insolvency and liquidation framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The dispute centered on whether PVVNL’s electricity dues could override the waterfall mechanism prescribed under Section 53 of the IBC or be treated as government dues. Background PVVNL supplied electricity to Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. under a 2010 agreement. The debtor defaulted on electricity payments, leading PVVNL to attach its assets in 2016. Raman Ispat entered insolvency proceedings, which eventually led to liquidation. The liquidator sought release of the attached property to sell it and distribute proceeds as per IBC. NCLT and NCLAT ruled against PVVNL, treating it as an operational creditor. PVVNL appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking priority treatment for its dues under the Electricity Act, 2003 and UP Supply Code, 2005. Key Developments PVVNL argued its dues were “secured” and had priority over other claims. The NCLT and NCLAT held that PVVNL was merely an operational creditor under IBC. Supreme Court examined whether electricity dues could be treated as government obligations or override the IBC waterfall. Issues Can PVVNL’s dues be treated as “secured” under IBC? Do the Electricity Act, 2003 and UP Supply Code, 2005 override Section 53 of IBC? Should PVVNL’s dues be treated as government dues with lower priority? Current Status (Judgment) PVVNL as Secured Operational Creditor: Due to the charge created under the 2005 UP Supply Code and contract, PVVNL was recognized as a secured operational creditor. Not Government Dues: PVVNL, though government-owned, is a corporate entity. Its dues are not government obligations under Section 53(1)(e). IBC Prevails: Section 238 of IBC overrides provisions of the Electricity Act. The waterfall mechanism under Section 53 is binding. Options for Secured Creditors: PVVNL can either (a) relinquish security and claim priority under Section 53(1)(b), or (b) enforce security outside liquidation, with leftover dues ranking lower. Rainbow Papers Distinguished: Court clarified Rainbow Papers applied to statutory government dues (VAT), not to dues of state-owned companies like PVVNL. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of IBC over conflicting laws. PVVNL was recognized as a secured operational creditor but not a government creditor. The ruling ensures: Clear distinction between government dues and dues of government-owned companies. Consistency in applying the IBC waterfall mechanism. Predictability and fairness in asset distribution during liquidation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Read More »

Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Nisha Kumari Sep 29, 2025 Introduction This case concerns the conviction of Shatrughan for the alleged murder of Jagat Ram in Village Lolesara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was based solely on circumstantial evidence and conflicting witness testimonies, without any direct proof or clear motive. Both the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld his conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the conviction was sustainable in law when based on a fragile evidentiary foundation. Facts of the Case Jagat Ram was found with a deep neck wound and later succumbed to injuries. Prosecution alleged Shatrughan attacked him with a tabbal (chopper). PW-1 claimed to have seen Shatrughan fleeing with a weapon but did not witness the assault. Other witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-14) provided only hearsay accounts. Medical evidence confirmed a single fatal neck injury but failed to conclusively link it to the recovered weapon. The motive was unclear, and allegations of possible false implication by local authorities (including the Sarpanch) surfaced. Despite these weaknesses, both the Trial Court and High Court convicted Shatrughan under Section 302 IPC. Issue of the Case Whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when: there is no direct eyewitness testimony, the alleged motive is unclear, and witness accounts are inconsistent and unreliable? Judgment The Supreme Court (Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah) delivered its judgment on 20 July 2023 ([2023] INSC 630): Absence of Direct Evidence – No eyewitness saw the actual assault. Unreliable Testimonies – PW-1’s account was inconsistent; other witnesses’ statements were hearsay. Incomplete Chain of Circumstances – The Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken and inconclusive. Lack of Motive – The prosecution failed to establish why the accused would commit the murder. Forensic Gaps – The medical and forensic reports did not conclusively link the weapon to the injury. Possibility of False Implication – Local political influence raised doubts about the objectivity of the prosecution. Outcome – The conviction was set aside; Shatrughan was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point unerringly to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimony, lack of motive, and incomplete evidentiary links. The acquittal underscores the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh – Acquittal on Grounds of Weak Circumstantial Evidence Read More »

Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Reha Bhargav Sep 29, 2025 Introduction The case of Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors. (decided on July 24, 2023) deals with the maintainability of election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). It highlights the balance between strict procedural requirements and the substantive principles of electoral justice. The dispute raised the question of whether defects in pleadings—such as lack of technical detail—render an election petition invalid, or whether such petitions should be allowed to proceed if they disclose triable issues of corrupt practices. Background Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil was elected as the returned candidate from Zaheerabad constituency in the 2018 Telangana Legislative Assembly elections. His rival candidate, K. Madan Mohan Rao, filed an election petition under the RPA alleging corrupt practices, including undue influence and use of religion during campaigning. The appellant sought rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing it was vague and lacked the required “material facts” as mandated by Sections 81 and 83 of the RPA. The High Court refused to dismiss. the petition and allowed it to proceed. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Key Developments Appellant’s Argument: Petition was defective, vague, and failed to disclose a valid cause of action; strict compliance with RPA provisions is mandatory. Respondent’s Argument: Petition contained essential allegations of corrupt practices; minor technical defects are curable and should not bar the case from trial. High Court rejected the appellant’s objections. Appeal filed before the Supreme Court challenging maintainability. Issues Whether the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failing to disclose material facts and cause of action? Whether procedural defects or deficiencies in pleadings under Sections 81 and 83 RPA are fatal, or whether they can be cured in the interest of justice? Current Status On July 24, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, rejecting the appellant’s plea and allowing the election petition to proceed to trial. Judgment The Supreme Court ruled that the petition contained sufficient material facts to raise triable issues. It emphasized that petitions should not be dismissed at the threshold unless they are clearly frivolous or barred by law. The Court clarified that deficiencies in detail may be curable, provided the foundational allegations of corrupt practices are present. The judgment reinforced a pragmatic approach: election petitions must be read as a whole rather than dissected technically. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed that electoral justice should not be sacrificed for technical formalities. Election petitions alleging corrupt practices must be allowed to proceed if they disclose substantive grounds, even if imperfectly pleaded. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process while also reminding petitioners of the need to provide material facts. It strikes a balance between procedural rigor and the democratic principle of ensuring free and fair elections. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Maintainability of an Election Petition and the Need for Substantive Material Facts under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA Sep 29, 2025 Introduction The case arises from the communal violence that erupted during Ram Navami processions in West Bengal between March and April 2023. Allegations of the use of explosives led the Calcutta High Court to transfer the investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The State of West Bengal challenged this transfer before the Supreme Court, questioning the High Court’s and Central Government’s authority under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. Facts of the Case Six FIRs were filed in West Beng   al police stations between March 30 and April 3, 2023, regarding violent incidents during Ram Navami processions. Allegations included use of explosives, prompting grave concerns for public safety. On a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Calcutta High Court ordered the transfer of investigation to the NIA. The State of West Bengal objected, arguing that injuries were minor, seizure memos were flawed, and the transfer undermined state police. Meanwhile, on May 8, 2023, the Central Government issued a suo motu notification under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act directing the NIA to take over. NIA filed FIRs on May 10, 2023, and cognizance was granted on May 11, 2023. Issues of the Case Was the High Court justified in directing the NIA to take over under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act? Was it legal for the Central Government to issue a suo motu notification ordering an NIA investigation? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld both the High Court’s order and the Central Government’s actions, dismissing West Bengal’s challenge. Key Points: Section 6 of the NIA Act (2008): State police must inform the State Government of scheduled offenses [s.6(1)]. State must forward reports to the Centre [s.6(2)]. The Centre may decide whether the NIA should investigate [s.6(3)]. Even without state referral, the Centre can suo motu order an NIA probe [s.6(5)]. The Central Government’s May 8, 2023 notification was valid, within its powers, and uncontested during hearings. The Court limited itself to jurisdictional legality, declining to examine whether explosives were actually used. The NIA’s competence to act independently of state referrals was reaffirmed. Conclusion The judgment reinforced the Central Government’s authority under the NIA Act to intervene in matters of national security and public order, even without state referral. It validated the High Court’s proactive role in ensuring a credible investigation into communal violence and clarified the wide scope of Section 6(5). The Central Government lawfully empowered the NIA. High Court intervention was not excessive. The Special Leave Petitions filed by West Bengal were dismissed. The NIA will continue its probe into the Ram Navami violence cases. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds NIA Probe in West Bengal Ram Navami Violence Cases Read More »

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) REHA BHARGAV Sep 27, 2025 On July 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the claim of adverse possession in Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors.. The Court clarified the strict requirements for proving adverse possession over immovable property, reinforcing the principles of property rights under the Limitation Act. Introduction The case of Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors., decided on July 28, 2023, centered on a dispute over ownership and possession of immovable property. The appellant, Gostho Behari Das, claimed ownership through adverse possession, while the respondents—legal heirs of the original owners—contested this claim. The Court was tasked with examining whether long-term possession amounted to adverse possession under Indian property law, and whether the appellant could extinguish the rights of the true owners. Facts of the Case The dispute involved immovable property allegedly possessed by the appellant for decades. Gostho Behari Das argued that his possession was open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner’s rights. The respondents, led by Dipak Kumar Sanyal, claimed that the appellant was merely a permissive occupier or licensee. Lower courts had ruled against the appellant, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Issue of the Case The central issue before the Court was: Whether the appellant, Gostho Behari Das, had acquired valid ownership of the property through adverse possession, thereby extinguishing the title of the original owners and their legal heirs? Arguments Appellant’s Arguments Continuous, open, and hostile possession for decades amounted to ownership. Improvements and acts of ownership were exercised publicly, putting true owners on notice. Respondents failed to assert ownership or initiate proceedings within the statutory limitation period. Once perfected, adverse possession confers legal title under precedents of Indian property law. Respondents’ Arguments The appellant’s possession was not hostile but permissive. Long-term possession alone does not equal adverse possession without clear hostility. The appellant failed to produce conclusive evidence of hostile occupation. The burden of proof lies with the claimant of adverse possession, which was not met. Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the respondents. Key observations included: Strict Proof Required: Adverse possession must be actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile for the entire statutory period. No Hostile Intent: The appellant’s possession was ambiguous and lacked the necessary hostility to defeat ownership. Mere Occupation Insufficient: Passive or long-term possession does not extinguish the title of the lawful owner. Burden of Proof: The claimant must establish all ingredients of adverse possession beyond doubt. Thus, the Court reaffirmed that adverse possession cannot be lightly presumed and must be proven with clear, cogent evidence. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. underscores the narrow and cautious application of adverse possession. It highlights that: Ownership rights cannot be defeated by mere inaction of the true owner. Adverse possession requires hostility, exclusivity, and continuous possession. Passive or permissive occupation does not qualify as adverse possession under the Limitation Act. This judgment strengthens the protection of property rights in India and reiterates that courts will strictly scrutinize claims of adverse possession. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA AND SINGH LAW CHAMBERS High Courts in India Navigate Justice, Politics, and Social Equity Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against PM Modi and Amit Shah Over CAA India Must Adopt Integrated Strategy to Become Global Arbitration Hub: Jimmy Yim Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA Sep 27, 2025 The Supreme Court of India granted bail to human rights activist Teesta Setalvad on July 19, 2023, overturning the Gujarat High Court’s decision. This landmark ruling strengthens bail jurisprudence, upholds personal liberty, and reaffirms constitutional principles in politically sensitive cases. Introduction The case revolves around Teesta Setalvad, a noted human rights activist, who was arrested following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (2022). The complaint alleged that she fabricated evidence to implicate senior officials in the 2002 Gujarat riots. When the Gujarat High Court denied her bail, she appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to this significant decision. Facts of the Case In June 2022, the Supreme Court criticized individuals for allegedly misusing judicial processes by submitting false evidence. A day later, an FIR was lodged against Setalvad under various Indian Penal Code sections, including 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218, and 120B. She was arrested on June 25, 2022, and subsequently remanded to police and judicial custody. Both the Sessions Court and High Court refused bail. On September 2, 2022, the Supreme Court granted interim bail, which continued until her appeal was heard. Issue of the Case The central question was: Whether the Gujarat High Court was justified in denying Teesta Setalvad’s bail despite her prolonged interim bail, the documentary nature of the evidence, and no allegations of tampering with the investigation? Judgment 1. Inadequate Justification by the High Court The Gujarat High Court observed that a prima facie case existed under Section 194 IPC (false evidence leading to possible capital punishment). Yet, it held that such findings were inappropriate at the bail stage. The Supreme Court found this reasoning contradictory and legally unsound. 2. No Need for Pre-Bail Quashing The High Court insisted that Setalvad should challenge the FIR under Section 482 CrPC or constitutional provisions before seeking bail. The Supreme Court rejected this, stating it went against established bail jurisprudence. 3. Factors Supporting Bail The alleged offenses occurred between 2002 and 2012. She was already interrogated while in custody. The chargesheet had been filed, and evidence was largely documentary. Since her interim bail in September 2022, she had not influenced witnesses or tampered with evidence. No request for further investigation was pending. 4. Criticism of Immediate Surrender Order The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s sudden directive for immediate surrender despite Setalvad being on bail for nearly ten months. 5. Conditions of Bail Bail to continue under conditions set on September 2, 2022. She cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Passport remains with the Sessions Court. Any violation allows the prosecution to approach the Supreme Court directly. 6. Warning to Subordinate Courts The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the High Court’s earlier remarks or the Supreme Court’s bail order when conducting the trial. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle of personal liberty in India’s democracy. Key takeaways include: The presumption of innocence stands until proven guilty. Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of charges if the accused poses no flight risk. Courts must avoid conducting “mini-trials” at the bail stage. This judgment is a strong reminder of constitutional safeguards against judicial overreach in pre-trial detention and a landmark in Indian bail jurisprudence. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Determination of Ownership Rights in Adverse Possession: Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023) Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Sadalaw • September 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teesta Setalvad: A Reaffirmation of Bail Jurisprudence Read More »

MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) REHA BHARGAV Sep 24, 2025 Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2023), where anticipatory bail was granted after the High Court’s refusal. Learn about the case facts, legal issues, and the Court’s emphasis on personal liberty and bail guidelines. Introduction On 31 July 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. The case revolved around the denial of anticipatory bail by the Jharkhand High Court, despite the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet. The Court, presided over by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Arvind Kumar, overturned the High Court’s decision and reinforced the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts of the Case Marriage and Dispute The appellant married the respondent on 5 November 2020. The appellant alleged that the marriage was troubled due to interference from the wife’s father, which created tension between families. FIR and Allegations On 2 April 2022, an FIR was registered at Gumla Mahila Police Station (Case No. 07/2022) against the appellant and his family. Alleged offences included: Section 498A, Section 323, Section 504, Section 506 of the IPC. Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant argued that the FIR was filed without following the mandatory procedure laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP. Bail Proceedings Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC was first rejected by the Sessions Court (28 June 2022). The appellant then approached the High Court, which initially granted interim protection (8 August 2022). After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the trial court on 1 October 2022. Despite this, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea on 18 January 2023 and directed surrender for regular bail. Issue of the Case The primary issue was:Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail despite charges under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, given that he had cooperated with the investigation, and the charge-sheet had already been filed? Judgment The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order. Key findings included: There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the denial of anticipatory bail. The appellant had fully cooperated with the investigation. A charge-sheet had already been filed, eliminating the risk of tampering or absconding. The Court granted anticipatory bail and reiterated that personal liberty must not be curtailed without compelling reasons. It also reinforced the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to prevent unnecessary arrests in offences punishable up to seven years. Furthermore, the Court directed all High Courts and State Police Authorities to circulate and enforce these guidelines, ensuring compliance within a fixed time frame. Conclusion The ruling in MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. highlights the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring that anticipatory bail is not denied arbitrarily. By overturning the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair investigation, judicial balance, and personal liberty. This judgment serves as a reminder that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, especially when no compelling reason exists for arrest.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Sadalaw • September 24, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Read More »

Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 REHA BHARGAV Sep 23, 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana (July 19, 2023) granted bail citing prolonged undertrial detention and violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Introduction The case of Boini Mahipal & Another v. State of Telangana, decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 19, 2023, addressed a crucial issue of granting bail due to prolonged pre-trial detention. The petitioners, accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), had been in judicial custody for over five years without conclusion of trial. They argued that such prolonged incarceration violated their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, balanced the seriousness of the charge with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, ultimately granting bail. Facts of the Case Petitioners Boini Mahipal and another were accused of murder under Section 302 IPC in Telangana. They were arrested and kept in judicial custody for more than five years as undertrial prisoners. The prosecution alleged a pre-planned murder conspiracy, citing witness testimonies and forensic evidence. Despite this, the trial remained incomplete, with many witnesses yet to be examined. Their bail pleas were repeatedly rejected by the trial court and the High Court. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court, citing a violation of Article 21. Issue Before the Court Whether prolonged pre-trial detention of over five years in a murder case justified the grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, despite the gravity of charges under Section 302 IPC? Petitioners’ Arguments The petitioners argued: Continued incarceration for over five years violated their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The trial delays were not attributable to them but due to systemic issues. Many witnesses remained unexamined, with no foreseeable conclusion of trial. Repeated bail rejections ignored their prolonged undertrial status. Cited precedents where bail was granted due to long undertrial detention. Emphasized that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” when detention becomes punitive. Respondent’s Arguments The State of Telangana opposed bail, arguing: The accused were involved in a heinous and pre-planned murder. Bail could risk witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or obstruction of justice. The gravity of charges under Section 302 IPC justified their continued detention. Delay in trial does not automatically guarantee bail. Efforts were being made to expedite the trial. Judgment of the Supreme Court On July 19, 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioners. Key findings: Though murder is a grave offence, prolonged detention without trial completion violates Article 21. Inordinate delays not attributable to the accused amount to punishment without conviction. Reiterated the principle: “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”. Ordered release of the petitioners on bail, with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent tampering with evidence. The Court stressed that justice must balance the interests of society and the rights of individuals, and prolonged undertrial detention undermines the fairness of the system. Conclusion The ruling in Boini Mahipal & Anr. v. State of Telangana reinforces that prolonged undertrial detention cannot be justified solely on the seriousness of charges. By granting bail, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and systemic delays must not translate into indefinite punishment before conviction. This case serves as an important precedent for protecting the rights of undertrial prisoners, ensuring that liberty is preserved unless guilt is proven. Official judgement of court Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Read More »

Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Zoho’s Sridhar Vembu Urges H-1B Holders to Return to India Amid U.S. Visa Fee Hike Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh REHA BHARGAV Sep 23, 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Yashodhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (July 18, 2023) held that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. Learn about facts, issues, and judgment. Introduction The case of Yashodhan Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided by the Supreme Court of India on July 18, 2023, examined the scope of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The appellants, not named in the original chargesheet, were later summoned by the trial court based on witness statements. They challenged this order, arguing that they were denied an opportunity of hearing before being added as accused. The judgment, delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, addressed important questions of fair trial rights, due process, and natural justice in criminal proceedings. Facts of the Case Criminal proceedings began against certain accused persons under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after a violent incident. During trial, prosecution witnesses made statements implicating Yashodhan Singh and others who were not named in the original FIR or chargesheet. The trial court invoked Section 319 CrPC and summoned them as additional accused. The appellants argued that this was done without notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Issue Before the Court Whether a person can be summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC without being given an opportunity of hearing, and whether such omission violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioners’ Arguments The appellants argued: The summoning order violated natural justice since they were not heard before being added as accused. Witness statements against them were vague and insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Being added as accused after the trial began caused serious prejudice to their defense. Section 319 CrPC must be interpreted consistently with due process under Article 21. Judicial discretion under this provision should be exercised cautiously and only after notice and hearing. Respondents’ Arguments The State of Uttar Pradesh argued: Section 319 empowers courts to summon anyone appearing guilty, even if not named in the FIR or chargesheet. The trial court acted on sworn testimonies from prosecution witnesses, which provided sufficient basis. The law does not expressly require pre-summoning notice. Once summoned, accused persons have ample opportunity to defend themselves during trial. The provision ensures that all real culprits are brought to justice and prevents miscarriage of justice. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court, in its July 18, 2023 ruling, sided with the appellants and set aside the trial court’s summoning order. Key observations: Principles of natural justice apply at the summoning stage under Section 319 CrPC. An opportunity of hearing must be given before summoning someone as an accused. Though Section 319 does not expressly require notice, it must be read into the provision to protect due process. Summoning additional accused carries serious legal consequences and must be based on strong, cogent evidence, not vague statements. The Court quashed the summoning order and reinforced that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed. Conclusion The judgment underscores that fair trial and natural justice are non-negotiable rights under Article 21. By ruling that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before summoning under Section 319 CrPC, the Supreme Court set a precedent protecting individuals from arbitrary inclusion as accused during trial. This case reaffirms that judicial power must be exercised cautiously, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done in a fair and lawful manner. Official judgement of court   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Sadalaw • September 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote