Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution 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