The Supreme Court of India ruled that a buyer failing to meet contractual obligations cannot claim a refund, upholding a Rs 20 lakh forfeiture in a property dispute. The court clarified the distinction between “earnest money” and “advance,” concluding the seller’s actions were justified due to the buyer’s default and lack of a refund request.
Delhi High Court has restrained DDA from taking action against Shahi Idgah for using a park during a 2024 religious event. The court cited the non-functioning waqf tribunal and scheduled the next hearing for September 10. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to take any action against […]
Madhya Pradesh: The Pataudi family’s historic properties, valued at Rs 15,000 crore and associated with Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan, are now closer to being taken under government control. The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled to lift a stay placed on these properties in 2015. This decision brings the properties one step closer to possible acquisition under the Enemy Property Act of 1968.
![[BREAKING] Supreme Court on Allahabad High Court Functioning: "Some High Courts Are Unpredictable, But We Are Worried for Allahabad HC'](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Abbas-ansari-2.webp?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court On Thursday (9th Jan) raised concerns about the Allahabad High Court’s case listing issues during a hearing for MLA Abbas Ansari’s property dispute. Despite earlier orders for an urgent hearing, the case remains unheard, prompting anxiety over judicial inefficiencies. The Supreme Court maintained the status quo on the property until resolved.
On December 24, 2024, the Delhi High Court ruled in the case of Birbal Saini v. Satywati, clarifying property rights under Hindu law. The court distinguished between ancestral and inherited property, determining that the disputed property was inherited by Bharat Singh and thus self-acquired, allowing its sale without heirs’ consent.
Ashutosh Pandey, president of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust, received 22 threatening WhatsApp audio messages from Pakistani numbers, warning of a bomb threat against the Allahabad High Court related to his ongoing legal case. Authorities are investigating the threats which also include personal threats to Pandey.
The Supreme Court ruled that a principal’s independent action effectively revokes the Power of Attorney (PoA) if known to both the agent and third parties, as evidenced in a property dispute case between two sisters. The ruling emphasizes clear communication and actions in revocation processes. It resulted in the revocation of the PoA favoring the agent, setting a legal precedent.
The Allahabad High Court reserved its verdict on the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute, challenging the legality of the suits filed. The lawsuits seek the removal of the mosque, claiming it stands on the site of a demolished temple. The Muslim side argues that the suits are time-barred and should be dismissed. Senior advocate Manish Goyal has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, and the court is yet to address several issues.
On Wednesday (24th April): The Delhi High Court emphasized a wife’s right to use and benefit from her husband’s property during her lifetime, including its income, for financial independence after his passing. The court clarified that this right does not grant absolute ownership, preventing the wife from selling or transferring the property. Case: Manmohan Singh & Anr vs Shital Singh & Ors.