Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Factual Background The case originated from a complaint regarding alleged financial fraud through online betting platforms, wherein the complainant claimed to have lost money via transactions conducted on multiple betting websites using PhonePe as a payment gateway. The police, investigating offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66C and 66D) and the Indian Penal Code (Sections 419 and 420), issued a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to PhonePe, seeking detailed information about certain merchants and users suspected of facilitating illegal betting transactions. PhonePe, a prominent digital payments intermediary, challenged this notice, asserting that as a system provider regulated under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, it was bound to maintain the confidentiality of user and merchant data. The company contended that such information could o...

  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...