H O Gupta & Associates

  Only Affected Parties Can Approach the Court; Misuse to Invite Costs The Delhi High Court has reiterated that writ petitions alleging unauthorized construction cannot be used as tools for harassment or personal vendetta, and that only genuinely affected parties have the locus standi to approach the Court in such matters. Justice Mini Pushkarna , while dismissing a petition concerning a property in Jamia Nagar , imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for misusing judicial proceedings and attempting to interfere in private property disputes under the guise of public interest. Background of the Case The petitioner had approached the Court claiming that illegal and unauthorized construction was taking place at a property in Jamia Nagar, seeking directions against municipal authorities to take action. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the petitioner himself had no ownership, tenancy, or possession rights over the said property. The Court noted that d...

The Supreme Court has reiterated the fundamental principle that criminal courts possess no power to recall or review their own judgments once signed, except to correct purely clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ). This core doctrine, rooted in the principle of finality of judicial proceedings and the concept of functus officio, has been unequivocally reinforced in recent landmark judgments that have quashed High Court orders attempting to review criminal decisions under the guise of inherent powers or procedural corrections. ​ Statutory Framework: Section 362 CrPC and Section 403 BNSS Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides the statutory foundation for this absolute prohibition. The provision states: ​ "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by...

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a judgment in  Proteus Ventures LLP v. Archilab Designs , clarifying two crucial principles in Indian arbitration and corporate law. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that partners of a Limited Liability Partnership cannot be held personally liable under an arbitral award , while simultaneously affirming that arbitrators need not possess legal training and that domain expertise is paramount in specialized disputes. ​ Background of the Dispute In August 2018, Proteus Ventures LLP, which operated co-working spaces under " The Mesh " brand in Mumbai and Pune, engaged Archilab Designs to carry out design and refurbishment work. Archilab executed work worth approximately ₹ 3.93 crore but received only about ₹ 2.04 crore, leaving an unpaid balance of nearly ₹ 1.88 crore. Despite Proteus admitting liability in an April 2019 email and making partial payments including a dishonored cheque of ₹ 30 lakh, the dispute persisted. ​ Followi...