Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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