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 Intervenes on Delayed Implementation of Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The apex judicial body of India has expressed strong disapproval regarding the Central Government's failure to establish a mandated framework for providing immediate cashless medical assistance to victims of road accidents during the critical "golden hour" following traumatic injuries. During proceedings on April 9, 2025, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan characterized this oversight as a "serious breach" of both judicial directives and statutory obligations under Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In an unprecedented move, the Court has summoned the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to appear via video conference on April 28, 2025, to account for this implementation deficiency. This directive follows the government's non-compliance with a previous judicial order f...

Failure to Acknowledge Section 80 CPC Notice: Supreme Court's Ruling on Adverse Inference Against the Government Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. , examined the implications of a government authority’s failure to respond to a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court underscored the importance of acknowledging and responding to such notices, stating that inaction could lead to an adverse inference against the government in litigation. Context of the Case The case revolved around a land dispute in Andhra Pradesh, where the appellants claimed ownership of a 3.34-acre parcel of land. The appellants contended that they had been in uninterrupted possession since 1970, supported by Pattadar Passbooks issued under the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and land reve...

  The Critical Role of Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in Protecting Confidential Business Information Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate In today’s fast-paced and highly competitive business environment, the protection of sensitive and proprietary information is more critical than ever. Companies often engage in collaborations, partnerships, or negotiations that require the exchange of confidential data. To ensure that such information remains secure and is not misused, businesses rely on  Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) . These legally binding contracts are designed to protect confidential information shared between parties, ensuring that proprietary data is safeguarded from unauthorized use or disclosure. This article delves into the importance of NDAs, their key components, and their role in fostering trust and legal compliance in business relationships. Additionally, it highlights the legal nuances that make NDAs enforceable and effective. What is a Mu...