Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Latest Position on Section 35 Notice under BNSS 2023 The provisions of Section 35(1)(b) and subsequent subsections of BNSS, 2023, emphasize the importance of strict compliance with the notice and arrest procedures. Section 35(1)(b) grants discretionary power to arrest, which must be exercised carefully, and the notice issued under Section 35(3) is mandatory for initiating arrest proceedings. Failure to issue or serve proper notice renders any arrest or action highly questionable and potentially illegal ["Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Supreme Court"]. The law mandates that once a notice under Section 35(3) is served, the recipient must comply with its terms, and non-compliance triggers specific procedures outlined in Section 35(6). Courts have clarified that the stage of issuing the notice is critical; arrest without proper notice violates procedural safeguards and constitutional rights, including Article 21 of the Constitution of India ["Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Supreme Court"]. Several judgments reinforce that authorities must follow due process, including serving notices and providing opportunities to respond, before proceeding with arrest or investigation ["Tamisetty Adinarayana vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Sri Balappa vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Sabhavath Vijay Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Procedural Developments and Court Interventions Courts have intervened to ensure authorities serve notices under Section 35(3) before taking further action. For instance, directions have been issued to police to serve notices properly and to allow petitioners to cooperate, emphasizing that action without notice is illegal ["Sri Balappa vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Banoth Gangaram vs The state of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Gutthi Satish Reddy vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]. Courts have also rejected attempts to bypass notice requirements, affirming that proceedings under BNSS must adhere to procedural safeguards, including providing opportunities for the accused or petitioner to respond ["Tamisetty Adinarayana vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]. Several petitions challenge the legality of arrests or investigations initiated without proper notice, and courts have consistently held that non-compliance with Section 35(3) procedures invalidates subsequent actions ["Shivarathri Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Legal Principles and Judicial Guidance The legal framework underscores that notices under Section 35(3) are mandatory, and authorities must serve them before proceeding with arrest or investigation. Failure to do so is deemed arbitrary and contrary to law, violating principles of natural justice ["Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Supreme Court"], ["Sabhavath Vijay Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]. Courts have also highlighted that the discretion granted to authorities under Section 35(1)(b) must be exercised lawfully and with adherence to procedural fairness. Several judgments have pointed out that proceedings initiated without proper notice or in violation of statutory procedures are liable to be quashed or declared illegal ["Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad VS Kashiram Textile Mills (P. ) Ltd. - Customs, Excise And Gold Appellate Tribunal"], ["Vedathanni VS Third Additional Income Tax Officer, City Circle V, Madras - Madras"]. Furthermore, courts have reiterated that the purpose of these provisions is to safeguard individual rights while ensuring law enforcement acts within the bounds of legality.
Analysis and ConclusionThe latest legal position clearly mandates that notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, must be issued and served before any arrest or investigation, and non-compliance renders subsequent actions illegal. Courts have consistently emphasized procedural fairness, safeguarding constitutional rights, and strict adherence to statutory procedures. Authorities are required to follow due process, including serving notices and providing opportunities for response, to uphold legality and prevent abuse of power. The jurisprudence underscores that arrest or investigation without proper notice violates fundamental rights and procedural safeguards, making such actions susceptible to legal challenge and annulment.
References:["Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - Supreme Court"]["Shantilal R. Lunkad VS Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax Inv. Cir. 3(2) - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"]["Tamisetty Adinarayana vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Sri Balappa vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Gutthi Satish Reddy vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Shivarathri Kumar vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad VS Kashiram Textile Mills (P. ) Ltd. - Customs, Excise And Gold Appellate Tribunal"]["Vedathanni VS Third Additional Income Tax Officer, City Circle V, Madras - Madras"]
In the realm of fire safety and building regulations, staying compliant is crucial for property owners and occupiers. A common query arises: what is the section 35 notice latest position? This question often stems from the need to understand procedural steps following inspections, especially under relevant fire prevention legislation. This blog post breaks down the current legal framework, drawing from key judicial interpretations and statutory provisions to provide clarity. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified professional for your situation.
Section 35 of the applicable Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act (or analogous legislation) plays a pivotal role in enforcing safety standards. It mandates inspections of buildings or premises, recording of violations, and issuance of notices to rectify deficiencies. Typically triggered after an initial inspection under Section 34, these notices direct owners or occupiers to implement corrective fire safety measures within a set timeframe. Prem Swarup Sharma VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 63
The statutory scheme emphasizes that such notices are not mere formalities. They enable recipients to respond, object, or comply, forming a cornerstone of regulatory enforcement. Judicial precedents underscore that issuing a notice inherently involves proper service to the concerned party. Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1271Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1220
Understanding the step-by-step process is essential for compliance. Here's a detailed overview:
The term issued is interpreted to include proper service, not just generation or dispatch. Failure here can invalidate penalties under later subsections like 35(4) or 35(7). Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1271Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1220
This ensures enforceability and protects against disputes.
Courts have reinforced that proper service is inherent to the process. In related contexts, such as under the Stamp Act, Section 35 bars admissibility of unstamped instruments, highlighting procedural rigor across statutes. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(SC) 414 For instance, Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. underscores how procedural lapses can render actions void. N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(SC) 414
In fire safety enforcement, similar principles apply: non-service undermines validity. The scheme of the legislation emphasizes that service is a mandatory step, critical for the legal validity of subsequent actions or penalties. Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1271Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1220
Other legislative uses of Section 35, like in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act for no-confidence motions, stress timelines—e.g., excluding receipt date in computing 7-day periods—mirroring the precision needed here. Raviraj Sambhajirao Nimbalkar VS Tahsildar, Bhudargad Chief Executive Officer - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 359
While focused on fire safety, Section 35 appears in diverse laws, offering comparative lessons:- Income Tax Contexts: Notices under Section 35 require prompt response; non-response leads to presumptions. Shantilal R. Lunkad VS Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax Verification of record shows that notice under section 35 dated 11-9-1995 has been served on 12-9-1995, since there has been no response... Shantilal R. Lunkad VS Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax- BNSS Provisions: Mandates service before proceedings, ensuring due process. Allampati Subba Reddy vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58017- Companies Act: Latest financial position must be considered, emphasizing comprehensive data in notices. Photon Infotech Private Limited VS Infrastructure Finance Limited - 2016 Supreme(AP) 150
These parallels highlight a universal theme: procedural compliance is non-negotiable for enforceability.
Property owners often face issues like:- Ignoring service modes, leading to challenges.- Vague notices, inviting objections.- Missing deadlines, triggering penalties.
Best Practices:- Respond promptly to inspections.- Seek clarification if notice content is unclear.- Document all communications for defenses.- Engage experts for complex rectifications.
In cases like unilateral cancellations of registered deeds, courts quash improper actions, stressing judicial remedies over administrative overreach. Manjunath Shetty S/O. Sri. Rajiv Shetty VS Bangalore Development Authority Reptd. By its Commissioner - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 1262
The latest position on Section 35 notices prioritizes inspection, recording, issuance, and—critically—proper service. Adhering to these ensures compliance and mitigates risks. Core principles include:- Timely, clear notices with specific directives.- Service per CPC or rules for validity.- Judicial backing for procedural mandates. Prem Swarup Sharma VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 63Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1271Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1220
Failure risks enforcement failures. For tailored advice, consult legal experts. Stay proactive in fire safety to protect lives and assets.
Sources:- Prem Swarup Sharma VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 63- Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1271- Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal VS State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1220- Additional references as cited.
#Section35Notice, #FireSafetyLaw, #LegalCompliance
) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, is a clear exception. ... 35(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, conditions mentioned thereunder ought to be complied with scrupulously – Compliance with Section 35(1)(b ... 35 (3) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Arrest – Mandatory notice – As a matter of course, notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS ... We have already clarified the position qua Section 35(6) ....
could be taken to provisions of section 35 of the Act. ... Verification of record shows that notice under section 35 dated 11-9-1995 has been served on 12-9-1995, since there has been no response to this notice, the Assessing Officer has presumed that the assessee had nothing to say in the matter and has passed the rectification order. ... It has been observed by the CWT(A) in para 3 of her order that a show-cause notice under section 35#HL....
up and finalised after the filing of the return in place of the value declared in the return on the basis of the latest available balance sheet is highly debatable and therefore, no recourse could be taken to provisions of section 35 of the Act. ... Verification of record shows that notice under section 35 dated 11-9-1995 has been served on 12-9-1995, since there has been no response to this notice, the Assessing Officer has presumed that the assessee had nothing to s....
During the course of investigation, respondent No.2 called the petitioner for the purpose of investigation and for serving notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. ... file of Yellareddypet Police Station, petitioner filed the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent No.2 to issue notice under Section 35 BNSS. ... For initiating any action against the petitioner, respondents have to follow due procedure as contemplated under law by issuing notice#....
that the petitioner instead of receiving the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and furnishing the information as sought for therein, is avoiding to receive the same. ... In view of the aforesaid submissions made, whereby the petitioner undertakes to appear before the 3rd respondent for receiving the said notice by 6.00 p.m., today, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to serve notice under Section 35(3) on the petitioner. ... ....
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if a notice is issued under Section 35 of BNSS to the petitioners, the petitioners will co-operate with the investigation. 9. ... under Section 35 of Bhariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”), 2023 in violation of judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. ... A consequential prayer is made to direct respondent No.3 to issue notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023. 2. The brief facts of the case as sta....
under Section 35(3) of BNSS, which action of the respondents-authorities, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. ... At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondents-authorities intend to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the petitioner will accept the same today itself. 7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. ... Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that since, the petitioner is refusing to accept the no....
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities were not issuing notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner. Questioning the same this writ petition is filed. 4. ... Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents, on instructions, would submit that if the petitioner approaches concerned police station, notice under Section 35(3) BNSS would be served on the petitioner enabling the petitioner to take appropriate steps. ... Having....
under Section 35(3) of BNSS. ... On the petitioner appearing before the 5th respondent on the date as indicated above, the respondents-authorities shall serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner. 9. ... 35(3) of BNSS by issuing notice to the petitioner, and thus, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents-authorities to follow the procedure prescribed under BNSS. ... Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition and the nat....
In its objections to the notice under section 35 issued by the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner raised the point that its case did not fall within sub-section (3) by reason of there having been a previous assessment. The assessment relied on in this connection was for the year 1946-47. ... Subsequently by a communication dated March 13, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued notice to the petitioner under section 35 of the Act to show cause why this assessment should n....
Next, we must notice Section 35, which reads as follows: Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.
I am thus not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was any violation of Section 35(2) of the said Act by the learned Tahsildar by not calling a meeting within 7 days from the date of receipt of a notice under Section 35(1). This Court in case of Nandkishor Shrimantrao Deshmukh Vs. Presiding Officer/Tahsildar, Jafrabad & Ors, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 592 has held that the date of receipt of notice under Section 35(1) has to be excluded while computing the period of 7 days under Section 35(2). The said notice admittedly was received under Section....
If that is so, the BDA could have ascertained the latest position by issuing notice to both the vendor and the present petitioner. Very curiously, the cancellation of the order has been presented before the Additional District Registrar – Bangalore Urban District by one Nagaraj, Deputy Secretary No.1 on behalf of BDA. The impugned cancellation order of the sale deed dated 27.02.2015 clearly depicts that BDA cancelled the sale deed of the second respondent i.e., vendor of the petitioner dated 25.06.2013 only on the ground that he has created false documents claiming that he ....
The words 'latest financial position' are of wide amplitude and the Parliament by choice and in wisdom has not used the words 'balance sheet'. Therefore, the convening of meeting causes with it the presumption of consideration of data and details to the extent required by law. Proviso to Section 391 insists placing on record latest financial position. Further, this can also mean comprehensive data and details.
35.3.4. Section 4 denotes abuse of dominant position. Under Sub-section (2), there shall be an abuse of dominant position under sub-section (1), if an enterprise or a group — (a) directly or indirectly, imposes unfair or discriminatory— (i) condition in purchase or sale of goods or service; or (ii) price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service; (b) limits or restricts — (i) production of goods or provision of services or market therefor; or (ii) technical or scientific development relating to goods or services to the prejudice of consumers; or (c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
