Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Case Title: Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019] Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Factual Matrix The Supreme Court addressed an appeal arising from a protracted dowry-related prosecution, where the appellant, Rajesh Chaddha, had been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complainant, Mala Chaddha, had alleged persistent mental and physical harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimonies of the complainant and her father, with no corroborative medical or documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations of physical cruelty or miscarriage. Procedural History The trial court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 323/34 and 506 IPC due to lack of evidence but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the...

  Overview The Supreme Court of India has recently addressed a pivotal question in the realm of intellectual property and arbitration: Are all trademark disputes excluded from arbitration? The answer, as clarified in the case of K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr., is a definitive no—at least when the dispute arises from private contractual arrangements rather than statutory rights. Case Title and Citation Case Title: K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr. Citation: SLP (C) No. 13012 of 2025 Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala Factual Matrix The dispute involved family members contesting the right to use the trademark “Sri Angannan Biriyani Hotel.” The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction and damages, alleging that the defendants had forged assignment deeds and engaged in misconduct. The defendants, in turn, invoked arbitration clauses present in the assignment deeds, seeking referral of the matter to arbitration. Procedural Journey The Co...

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware (Civil Appeal No. 11708 of 2016, judgment dated 14 May 2025), addressed the enforceability of an employment bond that required an employee to pay liquidated damages if they resigned before completing a stipulated minimum service period. The respondent, who initially joined Vijaya Bank as a Probationary Assistant Manager in 1999 and was later promoted, applied for and was appointed to the post of Senior Manager—Cost Accountant in 2007. The appointment was subject to a condition, as stated in Clause 11(k) of the appointment letter, that mandated a minimum service of three years, failing which the employee was required to pay an indemnity of ₹2 lakhs. The respondent accepted the condition, executed the required bond, and joined the new post. However, before completing three years, he resigned to join another bank and, under protest, paid the stipulated amount to Vijaya Bank. Subsequently, the respond...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Case Overview Case Title: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 672 Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B.V. Nagarathna Background This matter arose from a dispute over a sale agreement executed on 17 August 2015 concerning immovable property. The appellant initiated a suit for specific performance after the respondent failed to execute the sale deed. During the suit’s pendency, the property was sold to a third party. The defendants, after initially participating, ceased to appear, resulting in an ex parte decree. Execution proceedings followed, leading to the appellant obtaining the sale deed through court intervention. The respondents subsequently filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside the ex parte decree, accompanied by petitions for condonation of substantial delays (712 and 467 days). The trial court allowed these, but the High Court reversed the decisi...

  By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction In a significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal status of licensed stamp vendors, holding them to be "public servants" within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). This decision carries far-reaching implications for the regulation of stamp paper transactions and the accountability of individuals involved in such public functions. Factual Background The case arose from allegations that the appellant, a licensed stamp vendor in Delhi, demanded and accepted an excess amount of Rs. 2 over the face value of a Rs. 10 stamp paper. Following a complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch conducted a trap operation, leading to the appellant's prosecution and subsequent conviction by the Trial Court under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The conviction was affirmed by the Delhi High Court, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Core...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling that clarifies the principles of contract interpretation, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a comprehensive judgment in Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) Through LRs v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose Since Deceased Through LRs & Others (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2019). The judgment, authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, establishes a hierarchical framework for interpreting contractual agreements and elucidates the application of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court has articulated a three-tiered approach to contractual interpretation. The primary approach involves interpreting contracts in their "plain, ordinary and literal meaning," serving as the foundational principle for judicial interpretation of contractual terms. When literal interpretation creates absurdity, courts may deviate from strict literal meanings under the "golden rule of construction," which permits reasonable modificat...

 Supreme Court Clarifies "Readiness and Willingness" Requirement in Specific Performance Cases Recent Judgment Sets Precedent on Acceptance of Earnest Money Refund By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling that reshapes the landscape of real estate contract enforcement, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a noteworthy judgment in Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4972 of 2025). The Court has clarified crucial aspects regarding the "readiness and willingness" requirement for specific performance of contracts and established that acceptance of refunded earnest money may render a specific performance claim untenable. Case Background The dispute originated from an unregistered Agreement to Sell executed on January 25, 2008, for a property in Patna valued at ₹25 lakhs. The buyer (respondent) had paid ₹2.51 lakhs in cash and issued three post-dated cheques of ₹2.5 lakhs each. Shortly thereafter, the seller alleged that her si...

Mental Cruelty in Matrimonial Law: Analysis of Kerala High Court's Progressive Interpretation By Abhishek Jat,Advocate The Kerala High Court's recent judgment in Mat.Appeal No. 1037 of 2024 marks a significant development in Indian matrimonial jurisprudence, particularly regarding the interpretation of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This case expands the legal understanding of mental cruelty to include the imposition of spiritual beliefs and practices by one spouse upon another. By upholding the Family Court's decree of divorce, the Division Bench has reinforced the principle that matrimonial relationships must be founded on mutual respect for individual autonomy, including spiritual and religious choices. Factual Matrix The marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on October 23, 2016, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The matrimonial relationship was accompanied by traditional cus...

Supreme Court Reinforces Broad Scope of Section 319 CrPC in Summoning Additional Accused By Abhishek Jat,Advocate   In a landmark decision delivered on April 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has significantly reinforced the power of trial courts to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The division bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, in the case of Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025), held that courts may exercise this power based solely on unrebutted examination-in-chief testimony, without needing to wait for cross-examination to conclude. Factual Matrix and Procedural History The case stems from a violent incident that occurred on February 9, 2020, in village Rasulpur Khurd, District Karnal. The appellant, Satbir Singh, an Indian Army serviceman on leave, was involved in an altercation during a volleyball match with one Mukesh. According to Satbir's testim...

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for Son's Eviction: Balancing Family Cohesion and Senior Citizens' Rights Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate  In a landmark judgment delivered on March 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal seeking the eviction of an eldest son from his parents' house, highlighting the delicate balance between protecting senior citizens' rights and preserving family unity. The Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti poignantly observed that "the very concept of 'family' is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family," despite India's cultural ethos of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam." Background of the Case The case involved an elderly couple who had multiple children, including three sons and two daughters. The father, who owned a house and three shops, had distributed parts of his property among his daughters and son-in-law through gift and sale deeds. However, dis...

  Delhi High Court Upholds Rule 9B: No Senior Advocate Designation for Retired Judicial Officers from Other States By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, reaffirmed the validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. The decision effectively restricts the eligibility for Senior Advocate designation to retired judicial officers exclusively from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS), thereby excluding their counterparts from other states. This verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 2045/2025 , decided on March 27, 2025. Background of the Case The petitioner, a retired judicial officer with extensive experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS), challenged Rule 9B on the grounds of arbitrariness and discrimination. He contended that the rule c...