Latest news with #KVinodChandran
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC to hear suo motu case on probe agencies summoning advocates for legal advice
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on July 21 a suo motu case over the issue of probe agencies summoning advocates who offer legal opinions or represent parties during the investigation of cases. The matter is slated to come up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria. The case comes in the wake of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summoning senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. However, on June 20, the ED said it has directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in money laundering investigations being carried out against their clients, adding that an exception to this rule can only be made after "approval" by the agency's director. The statement from the federal probe agency came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege-linked controversy that erupted after the ED issued summons to the two advocates for giving legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited on the employee stock ownership plan given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. The ED, tasked with combating money laundering crimes, issued a circular for guidance of its field formations, stating that "no summons" should be issued to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. "Further, if any summons needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to Section 132 of the BSA, 2023, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the director, ED," the agency said. The summons issued to these advocates was condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, calling it a "disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
‘Compromise sought is nothing but abuse of law — Supreme Court upholds HC order in tenancy dispute in Goa
The Supreme Court Monday upheld an order of the Bombay High Court at Goa, which refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by an agricultural association of villagers with tenants, observing that the proposed terms are an attempt to circumvent the statutory framework laid down in the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and also violates the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the 'Comunidade' – an agricultural association of villagers that has properties in common – of Tivim regarding a tenancy dispute over two properties in Tivim village in Bardez taluka, Goa. The properties were leased by the Comunidade to tenants in 1978. A civil suit was filed by the predecessor of private respondents for entering their name as tenants in the survey numbers for the two properties. The suit was decreed in 1986 and the name of the predecessor of respondents was entered as tenant of properties. After the predecessor passed away, the private respondents filed a tenancy application before a trial court. In 2017, the trial court allowed the tenancy application, declaring the private respondents as agricultural tenants of the properties. Aggrieved by the declaration of tenancy, the Comunidade filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which remains pending. During pendency of the appeal, the Comunidade resolved that as a compromise, the land in dispute be bifurcated, with 60 percent of the land being allotted to the tenants and 40 percent land to be retained by the Comunidade. The Administrative Tribunal refused to grant permission to the Comunidade for filing of the consent terms in 2023 under Article 154 (3) of the Code of Communides. The Comunidade then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision last year. The Supreme Court held that the administrative tribunal has rightly refused to grant permission to the consent terms finalised by the Comunidade. In the judgment, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said, '…the proposed consent terms or the compromise sought to be entered by the appellant with the private respondents falls foul of both the statutes i.e. the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, in so far as it creates freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant and secondly, for the reason that these terms effectively allow the appellant, as well as the private respondents, to use an agricultural land for non agricultural purposes.' The court said the compromise not only circumvents procedural aspects of the Tenancy Act, but also allows the parties to use the suit properties for a purpose which is expressly barred by the Land Use Act. 'The compromise sought by the parties is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The so-called compromise or agreement is a ploy to defeat the provisions of law and therefore it has been rightly denied the legal sanctity which was sought. If the proposed consent terms are to be allowed, not only would the tenant be conferred full ownership rights, in complete disregard of the procedure for purchase mentioned above, but it would also mean that the tenant would be conferred a right to alienate land, without seeking permission of any statutory authority,' the Court said. 'It is abundantly clear that by means of the proposed compromise, the parties have essentially terminated the tenancy, without recourse to any of the modes referred to in Section 9 of the [Tenancy] Act,' the court added.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Compromising cases by sharing comunidade land illegal, says SC
Margao: In a major blow to the practice of comunidades to settle court cases with tenants through the sharing of disputed land, the Supreme Court has held that such arrangements violate both the Tenancy Act and the Land Use Act, effectively circumventing statutory protections for agricultural land. The SC, in its judgment delivered on Monday, dismissed an appeal by the comunidade of Tivim, upholding a lower court's decision to deny permission for a proposed 60:40 land-sharing compromise with agricultural tenants. The verdict of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that the proposed compromise terms 'fall foul of both the statutes' — the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court said that such arrangements create 'freehold ownership rights over tenanted land, without resorting to the procedure contemplated for the purchase of such land by the tenant'. The arrangements, the SC said, allow parties to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is 'expressly barred by the Land Use Act'. The dispute arose over two properties, Oiteil-De-Madel and Levelechy Aradi, belonging to the comunidade of Tivim, which were leased to tenants in 1978. After the tenants' predecessor was declared an agricultural tenant by a trial court in 2017, the comunidade appealed against the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the comunidade's general body meeting in March 2021 resolved to compromise by offering a 60:40 land division — 60% to the tenants and 40% to be retained by the comunidade. However, the administrative tribunal denied permission for this compromise under Article 154(3) of the Code of Comunidades, which requires the tribunal's approval for any compromise involving comunidades. The high court upheld this decision, which was subsequently challenged in the SC. The apex court observed that the proposed compromise constituted an 'abuse of the process of law'. The court said that the consent terms effectively granted 'full ownership rights' to both parties and allowed them to use the land 'for any purpose whatsoever', directly violating statutory restrictions. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, observed that the compromise would 'wipe out tenancy rights' that were legally declared by the trial court and bypass the specific procedures laid down in the Tenancy Act for the termination of tenancy and purchase of land by tenants.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court quashes over 1000 assistant professor appointments in 2 Punjab universities
Representative image NEW DELHI: In a major setback to over 1,000 assistant professors appointed in 2021 in Panjab University and Guru Nanak Dev University, the Supreme Court on Monday quashed their recruitment, observing that it was done in violation of UGC regulations. Recruitment was done for 1,091 posts of assistant professor and 67 posts of librarian. The court said it is a settled principle that when the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in that manner alone. "In the present case, there are multiple deficiencies. Giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said. "Hence, the single judge (of Punjab and Haryana HC) had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the division bench of HC erred in interfering with that conclusion," it said. SC accepted the plea of senior advocates Raju Ramchandran and Nidhesh Gupta who alleged that the recruitment process was illegal and needed to be set aside. The court noted that the recruitment process was changed without any reason and it was decided by govt that selection would be done only on the basis of a written exam. "State is entitled to change its policy, yet a sudden change without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion. Even in cases where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way of doing a thing, the executive must observe the long-standing practice," it said.
News18
5 days ago
- Business
- News18
Mere Registered Sale Deed Won't Confer Ownership: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer The Supreme Court has ruled that a registered sale deed alone does not confer ownership of a property. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran observed in a case that while the title was claimed to have been validly obtained through instruments of conveyance, the vendor's title was questionable. Furthermore, actual possession had not been proven. The court was addressing an appeal by Mahinoor Fatima Imran and others against the Telangana High Court's division bench judgment that dismissed their appeal against a single judge's order. The appellants, legal representatives of the original owners/declarants, asserted their possession and ownership. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, claimed their possession based on unchallenged title deeds. The appellants argued that the sale agreement from March 19, 1982, and the executed title deeds could not confer any title to the vendees, as the vendor did not have valid title. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, based their claims on the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana & Anr (2012). The bench, however, said, 'The decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a division bench of this court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills." The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer, particularly in light of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. The practice of using Power of Attorney sales with sale agreements and wills, instead of proper deeds of conveyance upon full consideration receipt, was criticised. The court stressed that while document registration informs the public that a document has been executed, it does not confer unimpeachable validity on all registered documents. The bench noted that the writ petitioners claimed proper conveyances through registered sale deeds from Bhavana Society, based on an unregistered agreement from 1982, which cannot be recognised as a valid transfer method. The bench pointed out, 'An instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months' time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration or re-registration within four. months from the date of such execution." The court concluded that the original and revalidated 1982 agreement could not result in a valid title, even if the subsequent instrument was registered. In the case, the single judge did not decide the title but raised valid suspicion regarding the vendor's title in the deed of conveyance. The writ petitioners' claim was based on a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance, especially as it was not a registered document. The bench stated that the title is prima facie suspect, disqualifying the petitioners from claiming rightful possession, which was also unproven. The dispute involved approximately 53 acres of prime land in Raidurg Panmaktha, Telangana, claimed based on registered sale deeds executed by M/s Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society. The court, while restoring the single judge's judgment, held that Bhavana Society had no valid or legal title to transfer, making the sale deeds void. view comments First Published: July 15, 2025, 03:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
