ORISA HIGH COURT SUGGESTED THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTWILL DO WELL TO GIVE WIDE PUBLICITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID RERA ACT,2016 IN ORDER TO INJUNCT ANY UNNECESSARY LITIGATIONS ARISING OUT OFBUILDER-BUYER RELATIONS. THE STATE WILL DO WELL TO ENSURE THAT THE REGULATORYAUTHORITY FUNCTIONING UNDER SUCH AN ACT MUST BE AIDED BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.THE STATE WILL ALSO GIVE WIDE PUBLICITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO ENABLETHE LAY AND LAITY TO SEEK REFUGE UNDER THE APPROPRIATE LAW. THE SAME WILL GO ALONG WAY IN PREVENTING THE PROPERTY RELATED DISPUTE

 


Mahasweta Biswal Vs. State Of Odisha And Another, (2020) 08 OHC CK 0013

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge.

Image
All India Union Bank Officer Vs. Brajeshwar Sharma, (2020) 09 MAD CK 0001 ( Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge. )
Read more

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 167 OF THE CR.P.C. AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 43(D)(2) OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967

Image
Khalid Vs. State (GOVT. Of NCT Of Delhi), (2020) 09 DEL CK 0033 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the decision to extend the judicial custody of an accused seriously affects the accused and the principles of natural justice clearly require that such an accused be granted the right to oppose the passing of any such order. Clearly for the right to be more meaningful, it would also be apposite to disclose the detailed reasons for seeking such an order which extends the time for completion of investigation accruing out of the proviso to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as modified by Section 43(D)(2) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 for investigations under UAPA. However, the rights ofthe accused in this regard have to be necessarily curtailed by the necessity to conceal such reasons from the accused and not make it public. This is because,at this stage, the investigation is incomplete and disclosing the manner in which investigation has proceeded and ...
Read more

Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.

Image
  Juhi Chawla & Ors Vs. Science And Engineering Research Board & Ors; (2021) 06 DEL CK 0035 Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.
Read more