Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 .
Constitution of India – Tribunals – Independence of Judiciary – Constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 – Legislative override of judicial directions – Doctrine of separation of powers- Validity of the Act is struck down -Tribunals being substitutes for High Courts in many fields, must meet the same constitutional standards of independence and cannot be exposed to executive control in matters of appointments, tenure, remuneration, or administration – Court directed the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgment to establish a National Tribunals Commission- The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system- Court also clarified and directed that the service conditions of all such Members of ITAT who were appointed by order dated 11th September 2021 shall be governed by the old Act and the old Rules. [ Art. 14, 21, 50 ,141, 323-A, 323-B ]

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

S. 132 : Professional communications – Advocate–Client Privilege – Summoning of Advocates – Investigating Officer cannot directly summon a lawyer appearing for a party to elicit facts of the case – Privileged communication protected under S. 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Summons valid only if it falls within statutory exceptions and approved by a superior officer – No need for Vishaka-type guidelines as statutory safeguards under BNSS and BSA are adequate [, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 132, 133,134 , 175, 179, 528 , Indian Evidence Act , 1872 , S. 126, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), S.34, 304-A , Art.14, 15, 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21,142, Advocates Act , 1961 , Bar Council of India Rules 1975 Rule 11 of Section 200 of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, titled ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’]
]

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

S. 92: Limitation –Co -Operative Housing Society – Recovery of maintenance charges – Continuous cause of action – Claim not time-barred – Section 92 is a special provision of limitation which overrides the Limitation Act – Orders of the Co-operative Court and Appellate Court were set aside and the dispute was allowed– The opponent was directed to pay arrears of Rs. 12,15,141 with 9% interest per annum from the respective dates of default till realization. [ S.92(1(b ), Limitation Act, 1963, Art 226 ]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
S. 439: Bail – Allegation of foreign nationality – Forged Indian identity documents – Aadhaar Card , PAN, Voter ID, Passport and Ghumasta Licence – Alleged Civil contractor – Suspected Bangladeshi origin – National security – Bail denied. [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, S.3(5, ) 193(8), 335, 336(3), 340 , Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950, S. 3(a), 6(a); Foreigners Order, 1948, S. 3(1), 3(2), 14; Citizenship Act, 1955; Foreigners Act, 1946, S. 9, Art. 5 to 11 ]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 .
S. 7: Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process – Limitation – Acknowledgement of debt – Balance sheet entries – Validity of acknowledgment under S. 18 of the Limitation Act even where name of creditor is not specifically mentioned – Liberal interpretation – Prior financial statements and cash flow disclosures may be relied on – Substantive jural relationship and continuing liability inferred – COVID-19 extension – Applicability of Para 5(I) of Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 – Entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 to be excluded – Application filed in 2024 held to be within limitation – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to NCLT for adjudication on merits.
[ S. 238A; Limitation Act, 1963, S. 18, Companies Act, 2013, S. 134, Sch. III; Art. 137, First Schedule, Art. 141 ]

Constitution of India.

Art. 142 : Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery , etc – The Term Lower Court is against the ethos of constitution – Record of Trial Court should not be referred as lower Court record .

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
S. 9: Eviction of tenants – Partnership firm – Tenancy created in individual capacity – Non-joinder of firm or other partners immaterial – Landlord’s bona fide need proved – Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises – Writ not maintainable – Petition dismissed.[ S.2(i),21, Succession Act , 1956 , Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Order 14 Rule 5, 30 CPC, Ss. 2(i), 21 , Art. 226]

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (BNSS)

S. 35: When police may arrest without warrant- Notice by Investigating Agency – Inquiry – Electronic communication-Liberty of individual involved – Cannot be served via WhatsApp or electronic communication – Standing order must follow CrPC/BNSS modes only – Application to modify earlier order rejected – State must ensure personal service – Application dismissed.[S.2(i), 2(k), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6),39, 63, 64(2), 71, 94, 193, 530 , CrPC, 1973 ,S. 41A Art. 21, 32 , 136 ]

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA, Act)
S. 43: Real Estate Appellate Tribunal – Powers of Tribunal – Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority – Right to legal representation- A Hybrid system of hearing – Execution of orders – Delay in enforcement – Virtual-only hearings – Hybrid hearing not offered – Absence of mechanism for urgent listing and execution – Access to justice is an important of any courts / Tribunals exists , must be given an opportunity of hearing – Tribunals were constituted with the sole objective of delivering speedy , inexpensive and decentralised adjudication of disputes in various matters -Exclusive reliance on virtual hearings is unsustainable- Guidelines issued to ensure access to justice – Writ petition allowed. [ S. 20, 53 ,56 RERA Regulations 2017, Circular No. 34A dated 08.04.2025, Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General, (2023) MANU/SCOR/03900/2025, Art. 226, 227, 323A ]

Indian Succession Act, 1925
S. 63: Execution of unprivileged wills – Registered will – Presumption of due execution -Registered will carries a strong presumption of genuineness and due execution under law -Oral family settlement – Testamentary disposition upheld where will is registered and signature admitted – Separate possession corroborates arrangement – High Court erred in treating property as joint family asset – Trial Court’s decree restoring full title and injunction in favour of legatee upheld.[ Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S. 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 68, 69; CPC, 1908, Order 22 Rule 10. ]