Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  Judicial Discretion in Granting Mandatory Injunctions: A Supreme Court Analysis of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 By: Advocate Abhishek Jat The application and interpretation of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, governing the grant of mandatory injunctions, has been a recurring subject of judicial scrutiny. In a recent and pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 15148 of 2017), provided a comprehensive elucidation of the judicial parameters and statutory prerequisites for compelling affirmative acts by a party. Authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, this ruling meticulously delineates the boundaries of judicial discretion and the conditions precedent for such an extraordinary equitable remedy. Statutory Foundation: Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act empowers...

Cheque Bounce and Section 138 NI Act: Detailed Legal Analysis with Recent Case Law By Abhishek Jat, Advocate, Gwalior High Court What is Cheque Bounce? A cheque bounce, or dishonour of cheque, happens when a cheque presented to the bank is returned unpaid. The most common reason is insufficient funds in the account, but other grounds include mismatched signatures, overwriting, stale or post-dated cheques, or stop-payment instructions. Cheque bounce disrupts financial reliability and can have serious legal consequences for the drawer, especially under Indian law. Legal Framework: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminalizes the act of issuing a cheque that is dishonoured for insufficient funds or if it exceeds the arrangement with the bank. The law aims to ensure the credibility of cheque transactions and penalize those who issue cheques without maintaining adequate funds. The penalty can include imprisonment up to two ...

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction Bail is a vital component of the Indian criminal justice system, serving as a bridge between the presumption of innocence and the necessity of ensuring the accused’s presence at trial. The concept of bail is rooted in the fundamental right to liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The process of seeking bail, however, is governed by statutory provisions, judicial discretion, and practical considerations that collectively ensure a balance between individual rights and societal interests. Legal Framework: Statutory Provisions Governing Bail The law relating to bail in India has undergone significant evolution, with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), now serving as the principal statute. The BNSS replaced corresponding sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and introduced certain refinements to the bail regime. The relevant sections under the BNSS are as follows: Section 479: Governs the ...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Understanding the RTI Act The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) empowers Indian citizens to request information from any public authority, including the police. It is designed to promote transparency and accountability, allowing individuals to access records, documents, and details held by government bodies. This right is especially useful if you believe you have been falsely implicated in a criminal case, such as under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with allegations of cruelty by a husband or his relatives. Why File an RTI in a False 498A Case? False arrests under Section 498A can cause immense distress and legal complications. Filing an RTI application with the police-specifically, the Station House Officer (SHO) or the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned police station-can help you obtain: Copies of the FIR and related documents Details of the investigation process Evidence collected and statements recor...

  Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Proper Property  Transfers: A Cautionary Tale for Buyers and Sellers By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment delivered on February 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of  M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs. J. Manjula & Ors.  (2025 INSC 273), has once again emphasized the critical importance of adhering to legal formalities in property transactions. The Court’s ruling serves as a stern reminder that shortcuts in property dealings, such as relying on unregistered documents or General Power of Attorney (GPA) transactions, can lead to severe legal consequences. This judgment reinforces the Court’s earlier stance in the 2012  Suraj Lamp  case, which had already warned against the perils of such informal property transfers. Background of the Case The dispute revolved around a property in Bangalore, originally owned by Muniyappa. In 1986, Muniyappa executed an unregistered agreement to se...