Disclaimer & Confirmation

The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the "I agree" below and by visiting this site, you acknowledge that you are doing so voluntarily and of your own free will and further acknowledge that:

We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she must seek independent legal advice.

Tag: HIGH COURT

Categories
News & Updates

Clove Legal has successfully obtained a landmark order from the Hon’ble Bombay High Court directing MahaRERA to implement structured guidelines governing its hearing procedures and functioning framework.

In Mayur Desai v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition (L) No. 11502 of 2025), the Court took cognizance of the procedural inefficiencies and lack of transparency in MahaRERA’s functioning, particularly its continued reliance on virtual-only hearings post-pandemic. Emphasizing that access to justice is a constitutional right, not a technical convenience, the Court issued binding directions to MahaRERA for:

  • Restoration of hybrid hearings (physical + virtual) within 4 (four) weeks;
  • A mechanism for urgent listings and effective execution of orders of MahaRERA;
  • Transparent cause-lists, pronouncement of orders, and grievance redressal processes;
  • Functional and accessible communication channels for litigants and lawyers.

This judgment significantly strengthens procedural equity for homebuyers and stakeholders in the real estate sector. It is a landmark decision that reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to transparency, efficiency, and inclusive access.

We remain committed to championing transparency, access, and procedural integrity across regulatory and judicial platforms.

Click here for detailed Judgement.

Categories
News & Updates

Bombay High Court reprimands MahaRERA for not holding in-person hearings – Writ Petition filed by Clove Legal on behalf of aggrieved home buyer.

Clove Legal successfully represented a home-buyer in a Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, whereby the Hon’ble Court while considering the common grievances of the home-buyers through our client, directed the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to review its Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and its Rules and Regulations for conducting effective hearing of the cases before the Authority and speedy disposal of the same.

Prior to Covid 19 pandemic, the hearings before MahaRERA were held physically. During Covid 19, the hearings were being held online to keep the legal system still accessible to the parties. However, while all courts and tribunals resumed to physical hearings or hybrid hearings (both physical and virtual), MahaRERA continued to function virtually. This made it difficult for the advocates and parties to approach the authority for an urgent hearing in the matters. Due to such inaccessibility, our client despite of having filed his Complaint in December 2020 obtained the final order in his favour only in November 2022 (after two years). Thereafter, due to non-compliance of the order by the developer, our client then initiated execution proceedings in January 2023 which were deferred for over a period of more than one (1) year until March 2024, when MahaRERA reserved the matter for final order in execution proceedings. However, no final order issuing a recovery warrant was passed for over a year. Hence, the writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court, whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct MahaRERA to dispose of the execution proceedings in a time bound manner and further, directed the authority to suggest guidelines to put its own house in order.

Our team comprised of Dharmesh Kotadia, Senior Partner; Chitrangada Singh, Senior Associate and Ayush Yadav, Associate.

Categories
News & Updates

Demand Notice Sent to Cheque Drawer Via Email/WhatsApp is Valid: Allahabad High Court

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Rajendra v. State of U.P. & Anr. whereby an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), held that a demand notice sent to the drawer of a cheque through ‘Email or WhatsApp‘ under Section 138 of NI Act for the dishonour of a cheque, is a valid notice and the same shall be deemed to be dispatched and served on the same date if it fulfils the requirement of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”).

Section 13 of the IT Act stipulates that once an electronic notice is entered into a computer resource beyond the sender’s control, it is considered dispatched. Similarly, when the electronic notice enters the designated computer resource or the recipient’s computer resources, it is deemed to be served. Further, Section 12 of the IT Act also provides the procedure for acknowledgement of receipt of notice in electronic form.

The Hon’ble Court reached the above conclusion by interpreting proviso (b) of Section 138 of the NI Act, that while this provision requires notice in writing, it doesn’t specify any particular mode for sending the same. Even upon considering Section 94 of the NI Act, it could not be inferred that notice must exclusively be sent by post.

In this backdrop, referring to Section 4 of the IT Act which recognises electronic records, the Court concluded that Section 138 NI Act Notice will also include ‘Email or WhatsApp’ if the same remains available for subsequent reference. In this regard, the Court also referred to Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 which accepts the admissibility of electronic records.

In the same case, the Hon’ble Court also laid down that there is no legal requirement to mention the date of service of notice upon the drawer of the cheque in the Complaint itself, if the notice was sent through registered post, then presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, that notice would have been served within ten (10) days from the date of its dispatch, shall apply. Though it is always open for the drawer of the cheque to take the plea during trial that the notice was never served upon him.

Categories
News & Updates

Bank Restrained From Taking Possession of The Secured Assets For Not Providing Break Up of Principal And Interest Amount In The Notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act – Gujarat High Court

  • A Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the matter of M/S Abaj Foods Private Limited vs The Authorized Officer, Punjab, challenging the actions/measures taken by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).
  • The Petitioner contended that the Notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the Respondent Bank mentioning the balance outstanding as on the date of NPA without giving break up of principal and interest outstanding amount is defective and in contravention of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
  • In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Mithilanchal Industries Pvt. Ltd.:

“29. The words used in Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act are “details of the amount payable by the borrower as also the details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the Secured Creditor.” So, the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has to necessarily contain the details on the above two counts.”

  • In view thereof, the Hon’ble Court affirmed that as per section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act, providing details and relevant calculations in respect of the outstanding amount under the heads of principal amount and interest amount is necessary for the purpose of making demand in the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In fact, section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act gives right to the borrower to make a representation or raise an objection against the notice under section 13(2). Unless the borrower has the details of the amounts being demanded under a notice under section 13(2), the borrower would not be in a position to make any representation or raise any objection. It is only when the amounts under different heads are provided to the borrower that it could raise objection under any of the heads where the borrower finds that the amount quantified is not correct. Without there being any details mentioned in the notice, the very purpose of section 13 (3A) would also be lost to a large extent.
  • Thus, the petition was allowed by the Hon’ble Court, and the Bank was restrained from taking any possession of the secured assets of the Petitioners pursuant to the notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the actions under sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act till the final disposal of the Securitisation Application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.