Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Karnataka Court Sets Aside Executive Guidelines, Emphasizes ‘No Person Can Be Deprived of His Property Save by Authority of Law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the court has set aside executive guidelines that imposed land-use restrictions near defense establishments. The judgment, delivered by [Name of the Judge] on [Date], emphasized that “no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law,” citing Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The case involved a writ petition filed by Jambo Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Merushikhar Infra LLP against the Chief Quality Assurance Establishment and the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The petitioners sought to quash certain endorsements and letters, particularly those dated 15.07.2016 and 03.09.2016, that had been issued against them.

The court held that the Works of Defence Act, 1903, exclusively governs the imposition of land-use restrictions near defense establishments. “Executive instructions cannot abridge fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution,” the court observed, citing previous Apex Court decisions.

The judgment also found that the guidelines were not issued in the name of the President, making them invalid under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. “Rights cannot be abridged by executive action without legislative backing,” the court added, referencing Article 13(2) and Article 19 of the Constitution.

As a result, the court directed the respondent-BBMP to proceed with the grant of the sanction plan without relying on the Guidelines. “The process is to be completed as per law, within a period of three months,” the court ordered.

 Date of Decision: 29 August 2023

JAMBO PLASTICS PVT. LTD.vs   CHIEF QUALITY ASSURANCE ESTABLISHMENT

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jambo_Plastics_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Chief_Quality_Assurance_on_29_August_2023_Karnt.pdf"]

Latest Legal News