#immovable property

Bombay High Court clarifies that a dispute under a Leave and License Agreement qualifies as a 'commercial dispute' only if the property is actively used for trade or commerce, not merely intended for such use. The ruling directs plaintiffs to ordinary civil courts if the property was not operational, impacting jurisdiction in commercial property disputes.

Karnataka High Court holds that an express 'time is essence' clause in a sale agreement bars specific performance if the purchaser fails to pay the balance consideration by the stipulated date, even if the vendor committed minor breaches. The court ruled that readiness and willingness must be proven on the exact due date, reinforcing strict enforcement of contractual timelines in immovable property transactions.

Gauhati High Court rules that suits for possession and declaration of title over immovable property fall outside the jurisdiction of Small Causes Courts under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, rendering Section 96(4) CPC irrelevant regardless of valuation. This holding reinforces the exclusivity of regular civil courts for property disputes, impacting litigants and practitioners in Assam and neighboring states.

Madras High Court rules that a decree for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act does not automatically confer title to immovable property. Title passes only upon execution and registration of a sale deed, preserving co-owners' rights until formal transfer. The ruling allows partition suits to proceed despite unexecuted decrees, reinforcing the necessity of registered conveyance for legal title.

The Rajasthan High Court holds that an unregistered family settlement memorandum, though not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, can be admitted as evidence for collateral purposes. Where parties have acquiesced to the settlement for decades, estoppel prevents later attempts to invalidate it, reinforcing stability in familial property arrangements and protecting long-standing possession.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to close the plaintiff’s evidence after 12 missed opportunities but granted two limited chances to complete testimony, conditioning relief on payment of ₹25,000 costs and service of dasti summons. This balances procedural discipline with substantive justice in land disputes, affirming that courts may bend rules for valuable property rights without rewarding dilatory conduct.

ITAT Nagpur rules that Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) are intangible assets and do not qualify as 'tangible immovable property' under Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal set aside a Rs. 5.56 crore addition, clarifying that the provision applies only to physical property transfers, not development rights.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that suits seeking specific performance or injunction relating to immovable property cannot be filed where the contract was signed - jurisdiction is determined solely by the property’s physical location. This reinforces a strict interpretation of Section 16 CPC, impacting developers, landowners, and litigants attempting to forum-shop in urban centers like Bhopal for rural property disputes.

CESTAT rules that transfer of development rights, where it constitutes transfer of immovable property interest, falls outside the definition of 'service' under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The ruling shields landowners and developers from service tax liability on joint development agreements, clarifying a critical tax exemption for real estate transactions.

Bombay High Court holds that transfer of leasehold rights in industrial plots is transfer of immovable property, not a taxable service under GST Act, quashing demand notice.

The CETAT holds that Cenvat credit is permissible on capital goods used for providing taxable services, not just manufacture, clarifying eligibility for storage tanks and fabrication inputs.