Ownership

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was warranted, emphasizing the need to focus solely on the allegations in the plaint at the preliminary stage because the issues regarding limitation and adverse possession required further evidence and examination, which could not be resolved without a full trial.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Only when the subject matter of the dispute relates to actions in rem, that do not relate to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem, the subject matter will be non-arbitrable.”

jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The High Court opined that the petitioner has a right of opening of windows on his property even if they are facing towards the house of the respondent.

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court emphasised that the appropriate Government has not cancelled or amended the terms of the exemption under Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Patiala House Courts
Case BriefsDistrict Court

The landlord was offered the possession of the suit property which was refused by him on the pretext of damage to the suit property, whereas no evidence has been adduced by him about damage to the suit property except his bald statements.

conferring rights in immovable property
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.

ChatGPT
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Rohan Khosla†

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court said that Rule 55-A is delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, it is held that the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order holding the respondent as the owner of the encroached land, as an encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.

Case BriefsForeign Courts

African Court on Human and People’s Rights (‘AFCHPR’): While deciding the instant matter concerning the eviction of a Kenyan indigenous minority ethnic

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: In a matter with regard to the grant of leave to defend, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, the tenant

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Sameer Jain J. dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the impugned order. Factual Background The facts of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., is considering a very interesting case where the dispute between the parties is regarding the ownership

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Pramod Rao†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 15

Case Briefs

Competition Commission of South Africa in a statement prohibited the transaction proposed by ECP Africa intended to acquire Burger King (South Africa)

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Achal Gupta†

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Anil Kshetarpal, J., while addressing the instant petition against the impugned order of Deputy Commissioner expressed that,

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that to prove the case