Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, Section 9, 82—Demolition of unauthorized constructions—In this case, the Supreme Court issued several significant directions concerning disputes related to unauthorized construction and violations of building permissions—The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the judgment to the Registrar General of all High Courts, ensuring that it is referred to in matters involving unauthorised construction, deviations from approved plans, and related issues—Furthermore, the Court instructed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories—The State Governments and Union Territories were directed to issue circulars to local authorities and municipal corporations, ensuring strict...

Commercial Courts Act, 2015—Section 2(1)(c)(xviii)—The High Court clarified that disputes arising from employer-employee relationships, such as those concerning salary and damages, fall outside the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015—It held that the Act applies specifically to agreements for the sale of goods or provision of services—The court emphasized that the term "provision of services" should be interpreted as involving services currently being provided or in active use—Furthermore, it stated that high-value contracts do not automatically qualify as commercial disputes; the nature of the dispute and the parties' relationship are crucial factors—The ruling underscores that service disputes, including employment contracts, are governed by service law jurisprudence and common law,...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151—Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A—The rejection of a plaint in a trademark suit raised the question of whether the appellant fulfilled the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015—The appellant argued that trademark suits inherently involve urgency, citing relevant case law—However, the respondent countered by highlighting the appellant's previous suit filing without seeking urgent relief and subsequent withdrawal—The trial court deemed the claimed urgency as fictitious—The court analyzed Section 12A's significance, stressing its mandatory nature and the need to prevent its circumvention—It emphasized evaluating each case's factual nuances from th...

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11, for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not fall within the definition of commercial disputes as envisaged under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949, Section, 9...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138—Cheque dishonour —Revision against the conviction order by appellate court—Plea of material alteration—There is an alteration in the cheque which is visible to the naked eye—However, there is a signature underneath the said correction—No complaint is filed by the accused that a cheque has been misused by the complainant—Such misuse is not explained—The impugned judgments, do not suffer from legal infirmity—The Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction. (Paras 13 and 14) ...

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Signed blank cheque—The signature in the cheque is admitted—Whether  amount and the date in the cheque were written contemporaneously with the signature of the petitioner and the name of the opposite party company therein, such question cannot be addressed by the court despite the fact that the court is an expert of all experts, and appointment of a scientific expert specialized in the subject is necessary—But at the same time, the accused/petitioner cannot be deprived of the opportunity to rebut the case made out by the complainant/opposite party—In the result, the order impugned is set aside—The petition is disposed of accordingly.  (Paras 18, 19) (B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 49—Dishonour ...