List of Current Affairs

Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Aarti Sathe, in M/s. Sada Anand Developers v. Shree Balaji Realty (2026), allowed an Appeal from Order and set aside a Trial Court order that had restrained the Appellant from dealing with certain Transferable Development Rights (TDR), holding that since the underlying MOU was inherently determinable, its specific performance could not be insisted upon and, consequently, could not be protected by way of interim injunction. 

What was the Background of M/s. Sada Anand Developers v. Shree Balaji Realty (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from an agreement dated July 13, 2022, under which the Respondent agreed to purchase 5,200 sq. mtrs. of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) from the Appellant. 
• Under the MOU, the Appellant was required to obtain the Development Rights Certificate (DRC) within the stipulated period. 
• As the Appellant was unable to obtain the DRC, it issued a notice dated October 18, 2023, cancelling the MOU. 
• The Respondent thereafter approached the 5th Joint Civil Judge, which, by order dated February 14, 2025, temporarily restrained the Appellant from transferring, alienating, or creating any third-party interest in the TDR. 
• The Appellant challenged this order by way of an Appeal from Order, contending that Clauses 4A and 4B of the MOU provided for repayment of the amount paid by the Respondent in the event of cancellation or failure to obtain the DRC within the stipulated period, and that the MOU was, by its very nature, a determinable document, rendering it unenforceable under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Nature of the MOU as a Determinable Contract: 
  The Court reproduced and holistically interpreted Clauses 4A and 4B of the MOU, holding that the two clauses could not be read in isolation and that, on a combined reading, the MOU was inherently determinable, since the parties were not required to assign any reason to terminate it and the terms of termination were themselves envisaged within the contract. 
• On the Bar Under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act: 
  The Court held that once a contract is found to be inherently determinable, the provisions of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked to specifically enforce the obligations contained in it, and that specific performance of such a contract cannot be insisted upon. 
• On the Grant of Interim Injunction by the Trial Court: 
  The Court held that there was no existing property or threat of dispossession from any property that warranted protection, and that the Trial Court had erred in exercising jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC without first forming a prima facie view on the enforceability of the MOU itself. 
• On the Correctness of the Trial Court's Approach: 
  The Court found that the Trial Court had proceeded straightaway to grant injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC without rendering any finding on the Appellant's contention regarding the determinable nature of the MOU, and held this to be an incorrect approach. 
• The Court accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned order dated February 14, 2025, and allowed the Appeal from Order. 

What is a Determinable Contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 lists the categories of contracts that cannot be specifically enforced. 
• Clause (d) of Section 14 bars specific performance of a contract that is, in its nature, determinable — that is, a contract which either party may terminate or put an end to without assigning any reason, where the terms of such termination are themselves contained in the contract. 
• The rationale is that courts will not compel performance of, or protect through injunction, an obligation that a party is otherwise free to bring to an end under the contract's own terms. 

Why in News? 

President Droupadi Murmu has promulgated a regulation providing for the establishment of a sitting Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in the Union Territory of Ladakh. The regulation, notified by the Ministry of Law and Justice on August 27, 2026, is aimed at facilitating the functioning of the common High Court in Ladakh. 

What was the Background of the Regulation? 

• The Union Territory of Ladakh (Sitting of Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh in Ladakh) Regulation, 2026, has been promulgated under Article 240 of the Constitution, read with Section 58(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. 
• The regulation follows the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019, under which Ladakh became a separate Union Territory while continuing to share the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh with the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. 
• Until now, there was no arrangement enabling the common High Court to sit within Ladakh itself, notwithstanding Ladakh's separate Union Territory status. 

What are the Key Provisions of the Regulation? 

• On the Principal Seat of the High Court: 
  The principal seat of the common High Court will continue to remain at the same place where the principal seat of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh was located immediately before the regulation comes into force. 
• On the Sitting of Judges in Ladakh: 
  The regulation enables Judges and Division Courts of the High Court to sit at a place or places within the Union Territory of Ladakh. Such arrangements may be made by the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh. 
• On the Chief Justice's Discretion Over Case Allocation: 
  The regulation gives the Chief Justice discretion to direct that any case or class of cases arising in Ladakh be heard at Srinagar or Jammu instead, depending on the circumstances. 
• On Territorial Extent and Commencement: 
  The regulation will extend to the whole of the Union Territory of Ladakh and will come into force on a date to be appointed by the Administrator of Ladakh through a notification in the Official Gazette. 

What is Article 240 of the Constitution of India? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Article 240 confers upon the President the power to frame regulations for the peace, progress, and good government of specified Union Territories. Such regulations carry the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament and may amend or repeal existing parliamentary legislation applicable to the territory concerned. The provision is intended to ensure effective and centralised administration in Union Territories that lack a full-fledged legislature, or where Parliament considers a centralised mechanism more suitable. 

Union Territories Covered Under Article 240(1): 

• Andaman and Nicobar Islands 
• Lakshadweep 
• Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu 
• Puducherry (only until its legislature constituted under Article 239A becomes functional) 
• Ladakh, following its constitution as a Union Territory under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 

Key Features: 

• Regulations under Article 240 may be made only when the concerned Union Territory's legislative Assembly, if any, is dissolved or its functioning is suspended, or where no legislature exists. 
• Such regulations enjoy the same status as an Act of Parliament and can supersede or modify existing central or state laws extended to that territory. 
• The mechanism allows for expeditious law-making without the delay involved in the ordinary parliamentary legislative process. 
• It ensures administrative and legal continuity in Union Territories, particularly those that are newly formed, strategically sensitive, or lack developed political institutions. 

Significance: 

• Provides a constitutional mechanism for governance of Union Territories that do not have full legislative structures. 
• Enables swift executive-cum-legislative action without dependence on the ordinary parliamentary calendar. 
• Ensures stability of administration in newly integrated or newly created Union Territories. 
• Permits regulations to override or amend parliamentary law where required for effective local governance. 
• Assumes added importance in Union Territories with strategic or security considerations, such as Ladakh. 

Amendments to the Scope of Article 240: 

• Constitution (Tenth Amendment) Act, 1961: Brought Dadra and Nagar Haveli within the scope of Article 240 following its integration into the Indian Union. 
• Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962: Extended Article 240 to Goa, Daman and Diu after their liberation and merger with India.