Category: Allied Laws

Archive for the ‘Allied Laws’ Category


South Indian Bank Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (Delhi)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Enforcement of arbitral award – Virtual hearing – Counsel appearing from a moving car – Stamp duty – Arbitral award dated 13-11-2024 – Stamp duty paid only on 24-12-2025, beyond one month from the date of execution – Payment held not in consonance with the judgment in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India – Decree holder directed to furnish proof of payment of stamp duty along with penalty – Matter listed for compliance. Counsel appearing from a moving car during virtual hearing – Conduct held contrary to Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 – Cost of ₹1 lakh imposed, payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. [Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. ]

Yogini Bhupendra Parikh & Anr. v. District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. (Bom.)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

S.154B(29): Co-operative societies – Recovery of dues – Penalty for encroachment of common space – Parking of bicycle in staircase – Society had not adopted new Model Bye-laws containing Bye-law 169(a) authorising levy of penalty – Recovery certificate issued for ₹15.45 lakh for alleged parking of bicycle for 11 years – Levy of penalty retrospectively without any contemporaneous objection by Society – Recovery certificate set aside – Remand for fresh enquiry held unwarranted – Society could not retrospectively levy excessive penalty after acquiescing in the alleged encroachment for 11 years. [ S.154(2A), Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Bye-law 169(a).]

Pravinkumar Jethalal Dave v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 .
S. 23(2) : Open membership – Nominee – Succession dispute – Scope of revisional jurisdiction – Nomination does not confer ownership – Majority legal heirs supporting claim – Tenant has no locus to challenge internal arrangement among heirs – Revisional authority exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with grant of membership.[ Art. 226 ]

State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick (Gauhati) ( HC) (GAHC010232752022 ) www.itatonline .org . Editorial : SLP of petitioner dismissed , State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick &Ors( SLP (C ) No .30677 of 2024 dt .3-1 -2025 ( SC)

Constitution of India .
Art. 226: Cyber fraud – Unauthorized electronic banking transactions – Zero liability of customer (RBI Circular) – Bank’s duty of prompt action – Fraudulent siphoning of ₹94,204.80 on downloading app at behest of fraudster impersonating brand customer-care – Customer informed bank within one working day – No proof of customer sharing OTP/MPIN – Failure of Bank to lodge complaint, initiate charge-back or take timely steps – Third-party breach admitted by merchant – Negligence of customer not established – Liability of bank to refund entire amount- RBI Circular dated 06-07-2017, clauses , 7(1) 8, 9&10 ]

Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Ors v. Bank of Baroda (All)( HC) MANU/UP/1956/2025.

Constitution of India .
Art. 226 : Cyber-Fraud Claim – Customer Liability under RBI Circular (RBI Circular dated 06-07-2017 – Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions) – RBI Circular protects customers only in cases of third-party breach or where no negligence is attributable to the account holder; it cannot be used as a “sword” to recast personal transactions as cyber fraud- Writ petition was dismissed . [ Art. 227 ]

Rajeswari & Ors v. Shanmugam & Anr (2025 INSC 1329 ) (SC)

Indian Registration Act, 1908
S:17: Documents of which registration is compulsory – Assignment of decree for specific performance –Decree for specific performance does not create or transfer any right, title or interest in immovable property – Assignment of such decree is not an instrument falling under Section 17(1)(e)- Assignment deed was valid even without registration and execution could not be denied on that ground . [S. 17(1)( c) , Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , Order 21,Rule 16 ]

Madras Bar Association v. UOI ( SC) www.itatonline .org .

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 ]

In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2025, WP ( civil ) (No.632 of 2025 and SLP ( Criminal ) No.9334 of 2025 dt. 31-10-2025. (2025) INSC 1275 (SC)

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’]
]

Giri Chhaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Sushila Laliwala (since deceased) through heirs and legal representatives (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

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 ]

Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar v. State of Maharashtra (Bom)(HC)(UR)

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 ]