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

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking De-sealing of Property

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 4538-4539 of 2023 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 692 of 2023, upholding the order of the Delhi High Court. The appeals were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kishan, challenging the High Court's orders dated 11.11.2021 and 10.04.2023 in CM (M) No.998 of 2021 and CM (M) No.1089 of 2022, respectively. The Writ Petition sought a writ of mandamus to de-seal a property in Delhi Cantt, but the Supreme Court denied the prayer, asserting that the building plan had not been sanctioned.

The crux of the matter revolved around the jurisdiction of the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB) and the approval of the building plan. The appellant had contended that a previous order of the Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors. barred the Civil Suit No.759 of 2018 filed by the respondents. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had accepted DCB's jurisdiction and was in the process of constructing the property after obtaining due sanction, making the previous order inapplicable.

Regarding the de-sealing issue, the Court emphasized that the appellant's prayer was contingent on the approval of the building plan. As the building plan had not been sanctioned, the Court found no legal basis to grant the writ of mandamus for de-sealing the property. Moreover, the Court stated that the issue of de-sealing was interconnected with the pending Civil Suit, further diminishing the petitioner's claim.

In delivering the judgment, Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, "We find no infirmity or illegality in the High Court's orders. The prayer for de-sealing cannot be granted at this stage, as it hinges on the approval of the building plan, which has not been sanctioned."

With the Supreme Court's dismissal, the property will remain sealed until the necessary approvals are obtained, and the Civil Suit No.759 of 2018 will proceed in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations.

The judgment serves as a significant legal precedent concerning jurisdictional matters and the requisites for seeking de-sealing orders, setting the stage for future cases involving similar disputes.

 

Date of Decision: July 24, 2023

Ram Kishan (Deceased) through  Legal Representatives & Anr.  vs Manish Kumar & Anr.       

Latest Legal News