Can Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority initiate suo motu proceedings when a real estate project is not registered? Kerala High Court answers in affirmative The Court found that there is no separate procedure is prescribed for adjudicating the question as to the registration of real estate projects under S.3, and for adjudicating the imposition of penalty under S.59. Therefore expounded the law in the following words “the K-RERA is free to adopt a procedure of its own in full complia...

Whether the Execution Court had jurisdiction to deal with the application(s) for (a) recission of contract and (b) extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration? By virtue of Section 37 of the CPC, the Execution Court being the Court of first instance with reference to the suit in which the decree was passed had jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 28 of the 1963 Act. We, therefore, reject the objection as regards jurisdiction of the Execution Court to deal wit...

Whether elevation for judgeship in the High Court has to be considered collectively by the High Court Collegium or whether the Chief Justice acting individually can reconsider the same? SC answers the issue in the Writ Petition filed by the two seniormost District and Sessions Judges serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court observed that “The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and p...

Child not a movable property: Supreme Court in a child custody matter of a 2 and a 1/2 year old child allows maternal aunt to retain the custody. When the Court deals with the issue of Habeas Corpus regarding a minor, the Court cannot treat the child as a movable property and transfer custody without even considering the impact of the disturbance of the custody on the child. Such issues cannot be decided mechanically. The Court has to act based on humanitarian considerations. After all, the Co...

Supreme Court explores whether the term "owner" in the Motor Vehicles Act should be restricted solely to the registered owner. The definition of “owner” of a vehicle in the Motor Vehicles Act should not be confined only to the registered owner. SC finds that an expansive interpretation is possible. Section 166 of the M.V. Act enumerates the persons who may file an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal, omits to specify person(s) against whom the applica...