SangsLegal News Supreme Court Orders Action Against Commercial Use of Residential Premises

The Supreme Court has directed municipal authorities to take action, including sealing, against residential premises being used for commercial purposes in violation of the applicable Master Plan, sanctioned building plan or building bye-laws.In Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., the Court warned authorities against adopting a “pick-and-choose” approach, stressing that enforcement must be uniform. Premises located in areas clearly earmarked for residential use are to be given priority for action.The Court also clarified that merely because litigation concerning title or other issues is pending, authorities are not prevented from acting against unauthorised use. Completely unauthorised constructions may also face sealing or demolition in accordance with law. The decision is in line with earlier rulings including Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), where the Supreme Court held that unauthorised commercial construction on residential land cannot be legitimised merely because it has existed for a long time, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, concerning sealing of premises for misuse.The applicable Master Plan, zoning regulations, sanctioned building plan and municipal laws will determine whether a particular commercial use is permissible. Authorities must also enforce these restrictions consistently rather than selectively.

SangsLegal News Supreme Court: Mere Statement of Sufficient Material for Chargesheet Does Not Entitle Accused to Default Bail

The Supreme Court has held that a statement by the investigating agency that sufficient material has been collected to file a chargesheet does not, by itself, mean that the investigation is complete or that the accused is entitled to default bail.The ruling came in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr., decided on September 21, 2026. The case arose from an investigation by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad into allegations under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The investigating agency had sought additional time to file the chargesheet, and the Special Court granted a further extension. The Bombay High Court subsequently held that the accused were entitled to default bail. The Supreme Court set aside that decision, holding that the High Court had erred in treating the investigating agency's statement about the availability of sufficient material as meaning that the investigation was complete.

SangsLegal News Opening a Car Door Without Warning Amounts to Negligence:Delhi High Court

Opening a Car Door Without Warning Amounts to Negligence The Delhi High Court, in IndusInd General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roshan Kumar Sahu & Ors. dismissed the insurer’s appeal and upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT)Tiz Hazari Courts. The case arose from an accident in which a motorcyclist collided with the suddenly opened door of a car. The Court held that opening a vehicle door without checking for approaching traffic or giving warning constitutes negligence. The insurer’s argument that the motorcyclist should bear contributory negligence was not accepted. The Court also upheld compensation considering the claimant’s 90% permanent disability, including attendant charges. It reiterated the Supreme Court principle in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar that percentage of physical disability cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity; the actual impact on the person's occupation and ability to earn must be assessed. Public Awareness: Before opening a vehicle door on a road, drivers/passengers must check approaching traffic and give adequate warning. A moment of carelessness can cause life-changing injuries—and legal liability.

SangsLegal News A nominee can access funds from the deceased account holder's bank account, but the received amount will be subject to succession laws: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently stated that a nominee can access funds from the deceased account holder's bank account, but the received amount will be subject to succession laws. The legal heirs of the deceased will have the right to claim the funds as per the relevant laws.The High Court referenced the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Talwar and another versus Devender Kumar Talwar and others in 2010. In the Ram Chander Talwar case, the Supreme Court had established that any funds received by the nominee under Section 45-ZA(2) of the 1949 Act would be considered as part of the deceased depositor's estate and distributed in accordance with the applicable rules of succession.

SangsLegal News Simply having a benchmark disability should not prevent an individual from pursuing medical education :Supreme Court

The supreme court recently held that simply having a benchmark disability should not prevent an individual from pursuing medical education, unless the disability assessment board has determined that the candidate is unable to successfully study the MBBS course.