{"id":364451,"date":"2025-10-22T14:00:13","date_gmt":"2025-10-22T08:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=364451"},"modified":"2025-10-23T17:24:38","modified_gmt":"2025-10-23T11:54:38","slug":"using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> The present petition was filed by a practicing advocate (‘petitioner’) under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) for quashing of complaint under Sections 252<\/a> and 369(1)<\/a> of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994<\/a> (‘NDMC Act’) alleging misuse of premises by running his office without permission from the Chairperson, NDMC.<\/p>\n

A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna<\/span>, J., held that classifying the activities of the petitioner as commercial activity was not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and held that there was no misuse of the premises by the petitioner, who had been running his office in terms of the Master Development Plan, 2001, (‘Master Plan’) read with Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In the present case, the petitioner was alleged to have been misusing premises as he was carrying out commercial activity by running a lawyer’s office without permission from the Chairperson, NDMC. The petitioner submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance against the settled principles of law, and notice was issued erroneously to the petitioner.<\/p>\n

The petitioner also contended that running a professional office did not qualify as commercial activity amounting to human habitation, in violation of Section 252 of the NDMC Act. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the basement was never intended to be used for residence but only for storage, while the petitioner was using it for human habitation by running his office there.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court stated that the issue involved in the case at hand was “whether the legal services rendered by the office of a lawyer would amount to ‘commercial activity’ or not?”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court specified that while a commercial activity involved investment of capital, profit and loss and co-operation of labor; on the other hand, the professional service of rendering advice in law was dependent upon one’s own academic qualification and individual skill. Thus, the Court stated that the said peculiar and distinctive features of the legal profession did not permit its inclusion in commercial or semi-commercial activity, establishment, or institution. Further, the Court classifying the activities of the petitioner as commercial activity was not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Considering the Inspection Report, the Court specified that the petitioner was running his ‘professional office’ to provide ‘professional services’ in law, from the basement of premises. Further considering Section 252 of the NDMC Act, the Court noted that there were certain restrictions on use of buildings and stated that in the present case, it was a residential building, the basement of which was being used as the office of the lawyer by the petitioner, and there was no other use of this property but human habitation.<\/p>\n

After considering the Master Plan, the Court opined that the basement being used for professional activity was permitted under it. The Court emphasized that there was no dispute that the basement was constructed according to the Master plan and it could be used for commercial or office purposes. The Court held that in the present case, the same was being used as office of the lawyer only.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court opined that there was no misuse of the premises by the petitioner, who had been running his office in terms of Master Plan read with Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983. Further, the Court stated that considering the nature of unsubstantiated allegations and that the case being pending for the last more than 22 years, it would be abuse of the process of the law and not serve any interest of justice, if such complaint was permitted to continue and choke the judicial system. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the said complaint along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.<\/p>\n

[B. K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corp., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6365<\/a>, decided on 8-10-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Abhinav Bajaj, ASC with Saksham Ojha and Geetashi Chandna, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“A commercial activity involves investment of capital, profit and loss and co-operation of labor; on the other hand, the professional service of rendering advice in law is dependent upon one’s own academic qualification and individual skill. These peculiar and distinctive features of the legal profession do not permit its inclusion in commercial or semi-commercial activity, establishment, or institution.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":364452,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[50370,49965,11941,2543,69162,91210,91213,91212,91211],"class_list":["post-364451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-business-activity","tag-commercial-activity","tag-crpc","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-justice-neena-bansal-krishna","tag-lawyers-office","tag-master-plan","tag-new-delhi-municipal-council-act-1994","tag-semi-commercial-activity"],"yoast_head":"\nUsing residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse: DHC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that classifying the petitioner\u2019s activities as commercial activity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus, using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office was not misuse.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that classifying the petitioner\u2019s activities as commercial activity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus, using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office was not misuse.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-22T08:30:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-23T11:54:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/\",\"name\":\"Using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse: DHC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-22T08:30:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-23T11:54:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that classifying the petitioner\u2019s activities as commercial activity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus, using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office was not misuse.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Using residential premises as lawyer’s office not misuse\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse: DHC | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held that classifying the petitioner\u2019s activities as commercial activity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus, using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office was not misuse.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that classifying the petitioner\u2019s activities as commercial activity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus, using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office was not misuse.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-10-22T08:30:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-23T11:54:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/","name":"Using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse: DHC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp","datePublished":"2025-10-22T08:30:13+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-23T11:54:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that classifying the petitioner\u2019s activities as commercial activity was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus, using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office was not misuse.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Using residential premises as lawyer’s office not misuse"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/22\/using-residential-premises-as-lawyers-office-not-misuse-dhc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Lawyer\u2019s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer\u2019s office not misuse\u2019: Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Using-residential-premises-as-lawyer8217s-office-not-misuse.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":365704,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/04\/lawyers-office-in-residential-premises-no-misuse-under-ndmc-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":364451,"position":0},"title":"Lawyer\u2019s Office in Residential Premises: No Misuse under NDMC Act","author":"Editor","date":"November 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/shorts\/xNHE5pab58o","rel":"","context":"In "SCC Times Newsflash"","block_context":{"text":"SCC Times Newsflash","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/watch-now-2\/scc-times-newsflash\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-55-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-55-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-55-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-55-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301822,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/19\/delhi-high-court-overloading-includes-unauthorised-use-electricity-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":364451,"position":1},"title":"Overloading includes \u201cunauthorised use of electricity\u201d under Electricity Act; Delhi High Court reiterates","author":"Arunima","date":"September 19, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108, Supreme Court held that where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":364805,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/26\/high-court-cases-from-october-2025-weekly-roundup-on-adopted-child-lawyer-office-medical-representative-workman\/","url_meta":{"origin":364451,"position":2},"title":"HIGH COURT OCTOBER 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP [20th — 26th October] | Use of residential premises as lawyer’s office; Medical Representative if a ‘workman’; Rights of adopted child; and more","author":"Editor","date":"October 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.","rel":"","context":"In "High Court Round Up"","block_context":{"text":"High Court Round Up","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/high-court-round-up\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"High Court cases from October 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/High-Court-cases-from-October-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/High-Court-cases-from-October-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/High-Court-cases-from-October-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/High-Court-cases-from-October-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208621,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/sc-ndmc-bye-laws-introducing-unit-area-method-for-determining-rateable-value-violative-of-the-ndmc-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":364451,"position":3},"title":"SC| NDMC Bye-laws introducing \u2018Unit Area Method\u2019 for determining \u2018rateable value\u2019, violative of the NDMC Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench of Dr. AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ has declared the New Delhi Municipal Council (Determination of Annual Rent) Bye-laws, 2009 (NDMC Bye-Laws) violative of the New Delhi Municipal Act, 1944 (NDMC Act). The NDMC Bye-Laws were challenged on the ground that by introducing the Unit\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":7042,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/the-public-premises-eviction-of-unauthorised-occupants-amendment-bill-2014\/","url_meta":{"origin":364451,"position":4},"title":"The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Bill, 2014","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 17, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"On 15 December 2014, Lok Sabha passed the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Bill, 2014. The objective of the Bill is to bring the properties of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and other Metro Rails which may come up in future and also the properties of New Delhi\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Legislation"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Legislation","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/foreign\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":332270,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/02\/delhi-education-rules-ndmc-not-responsible-salaries-upon-unlawful-closure-school-dsgmc-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":364451,"position":5},"title":"[Delhi Education Rules] NDMC not responsible for salaries upon unlawful closure of School by DSGMC: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"October 2, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"DSGMC cannot be allowed to take shield of Rule 47 of Delhi Education Rules to claim that burden of re-employment and payment of salaries of surplus teachers and non-teaching staff upon closure of school. The question of absorption only arises when the closure of the school is done in accordance\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Unlawful school closure DSGMC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Unlawful-school-closure-DSGMC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Unlawful-school-closure-DSGMC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Unlawful-school-closure-DSGMC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Unlawful-school-closure-DSGMC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/364451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=364451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/364451\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/364452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=364451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=364451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=364451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}