#property possession

Bombay High Court rules that a party’s breach of an undertaking to the Court Receiver warrants termination of agency privileges, mandating a fresh agreement with compensation and security. The Court, however, refrained from dispossessing the long-standing occupant due to disputed title, balancing equitable considerations with procedural compliance.

Bombay High Court holds that an agent breaches court undertakings by parting with possession of premises under receivership, making them liable for compensation. The ruling underscores the strict obligations of court-appointed receivers and agents in property disputes, balancing long possession with legal accountability.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that banks cannot rely on previously issued warrants of commission under SARFAESI Section 14 if they have ignored prior judicial directives. A fresh application with full compliance is now required, reinforcing that procedural adherence is not optional but a precondition for enforcement. This impacts all financial institutions pursuing recovery through coercive possession orders.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that pending SARFAESI proceedings cannot disrupt school examinations when children's right to education is at stake. This sets a critical precedent that fundamental rights override asset recovery processes in educational settings, protecting over a hundred students and their teachers from abrupt institutional disruption.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that mere co-ownership of land does not justify restraining construction; plaintiffs must prove actual ouster or tangible prejudice. A minimal 15 sq.m. overlap, without evidence of harm or bad faith, is insufficient to grant an injunction-reinforcing that equitable relief requires clean hands and concrete injury, not just shared title.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that mere long-term possession without legal title is permissive and does not confer ownership rights. Filing an eviction claim by the true owner suffices to revoke any implied license, reinforcing that occupation alone cannot override the owner's title.

Bombay High Court holds writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate title disputes; grants one-week stay to petitioners to pursue civil suit or DRAT remedy.

Bombay High Court holds that registered leave and license agreements under Section 24 of MRC Act are conclusive evidence, barring any collateral challenges to ownership source.