Category: State Laws

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.

2026 INSC 489 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALKA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Manoj Misra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal…

Land Revenue Records — Evidentiary Value for Title — Revenue records like Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi, and Pahanies are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer title or ownership — Mutation entries do not create or extinguish title and have no presumptive value regarding ownership — Such records cannot be the sole basis for declaring title, especially when the primary document of title (patta) is not produced.

2026 INSC 450 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VADIYALA PRABHAKAR RAO AND OTHERS Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 — Applicability — Interpretation of delay in initiating proceedings — While delay is generally discouraged, it may not be fatal in cases of beneficial legislation aimed at protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lands, especially when parties to the original transaction are privy to the proceedings.

2026 INSC 457 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEETHAMMA W/O LATE SATHYAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 132 — Prohibition of Bhumidhari rights — Land originally recorded as Category-6 (barren/non-agricultural) that was later purportedly re-categorised to Category-5 (cultivable) on the basis of an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer, was found to be public utility land (khalihan and pasture) falling under Section 132, meaning no Bhumidhari rights could be conferred and any patta (lease) granted would be void ab initio.

2026 INSC 395 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABU SINGH Vs. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 — Section 88 — Khatedari rights — Claim for declaration of Khatedari rights and recovery of land unlawfully encroached upon — Trial Court decreed suit based on plaintiff’s inherited Khatedari rights from his father — Defendant contested case, later declared ex-parte — Appeal filed after significant delay rejected — Second appeal remanded by Board of Revenue, affirmed by High Court — Supreme Court held that original authority provided no opportunity to adduce evidence after specific date — Trial court proceeded ex-parte without proper service of summons, denying reasonable opportunity to defend — Sale deed not summoned, mutation ignored — Defendant’s unawareness of decree due to non-execution and delayed mutation change — High Court favoured defendant noticing her status as widow and illiterate.

2026 INSC 350 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

U.P. Urban Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 2021 — Section 21(2) — Eviction proceedings — Landlord-tenant relationship established and affirmed up to Supreme Court — Tenant’s subsequent restoration application before Rent Authority, challenging sale deed validity, was an abuse of process and overreaching court orders — Rent Authority’s order setting aside eviction was void for lack of jurisdiction, as title dispute is purview of Civil Court, not Rent Authority — Judicial discipline and adherence to law require subordinate authorities to follow higher court orders

2026 INSC 299 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH GOYAL Vs. M/S LAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 — Section 87 — Power to adapt laws — Section 87 of the Reorganisation Act allows for the adaptation and modification of existing laws in successor states for a period of two years to facilitate the application of laws — This provision ensures legislative continuity for local institutions, including Cooperative Societies, until replaced by fresh legislation — The transitional regime provided under Section 87 was relied upon for reconstitution of cooperative societies following the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh.

2026 INSC 216 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGISTRAR CANE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS Vs. GURDEEP SINGH NARVAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 98 — Recovery Certificate — Sale under Section 98 — Mandatory Deposit — Rule 107(11)(h) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 — Deposit of entire auction amount within 15 days of auction date is a mandatory condition — Failure amounts to void sale — Bank did not raise objection and accepted deposit after 15 days — Such acceptance does not waive the mandatory condition — Sale was void as the entire amount was not deposited within the stipulated period.

2026 INSC 197 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ADISHAKTI DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,…

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of unauthorised occupation — Legal fiction created by Section 123(2) deems land settled with house owners in possession by a specific cut-off date, overriding Section 143 declaration — Regularisation is a socio-economic measure and is applicable even if houses were built forcefully or without consent.

2026 INSC 193 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NARAIN (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and R.…

You missed