Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  Rejection of Plaint, Benami Transactions, and Fiduciary Exceptions: A Contemporary Judicial Examination of Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026) Author: Advocate Abhishek Jat Advocate, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas , Civil Appeal No. 7370 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7924 of 2024, reported as 2026 INSC 465 , constitutes a significant judicial exposition on the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the doctrine governing benami transactions, and the evolving jurisprudence surrounding fiduciary relationships under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan . The ruling is jurisprudentially important because it harmonizes procedural law with substantive statutory prohibitions and reiterates the judicial responsibility to prevent abuse of civil process through a...

Accountability of Advocates in Professional Advice: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan By Advocate Abhishek Jat The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4292 of 2024, decided on 15 January 2025), has provided crucial clarity on the professional accountability of advocates, particularly in relation to advice rendered informally. The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, holds particular importance in an era where mobile conversations, WhatsApp messages, and other digital communications frequently come under judicial scrutiny. The central issue before the Court was whether an advocate could be exposed to criminal liability on the basis of advice given casually over a phone call, when such advice subsequently emerged as incriminating material in a criminal investigation. The appellant had argued that as a member of the Bar, his communication with a clien...

Alimony from Previous Divorce Not a Factor in Future Matrimonial Claims: Supreme Court  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773] clarified an important aspect of matrimonial jurisprudence: alimony received pursuant to a previous divorce cannot be considered when adjudicating maintenance or alimony claims in a subsequent marriage . The decision was rendered by a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, who examined complex issues of alimony, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. Case Background The appeal stemmed from a contentious matrimonial dispute between the appellant (husband) and the second respondent (wife), both of whom had previously undergone divorce and subsequently remarried. However, their second marriage broke down within two years, triggering...

  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...

Supreme Court Invalidates Preventive Detention of Law Student Under NSA By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The appellant, a law student, was subjected to preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) by the District Magistrate, Betul, Madhya Pradesh, through an order dated 11 July 2024. This order was subsequently extended four times, with the final extension valid until 12 July 2025. The detention was premised on the appellant’s alleged involvement in nine criminal matters, including the current case. Out of the previous eight cases, the appellant had been acquitted in five, convicted with only a fine in one, and was on bail in two pending matters. In the present case (Crime No. 236 of 2024), bail was granted on 28 January 2025, but the appellant remained incarcerated solely due to the preventive detention order. Legal Issues and Arguments Scope of Section 3(2) of NSA: Section 3(2) empowers the government to detain individuals to prevent acts prejudicial to t...

  Medical Negligence: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling on Hospital Liability By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment concerning vicarious liability of hospitals in cases of medical negligence. In a noteworthy decision in The Managing Director, Kamineni Hospitals v. Peddi Narayana Swami & Anr. (Civil Appeal arising from SLP (Civil) No. 2948-2949 of 2023), the apex court upheld the finding of liability against the hospital while modifying the compensation amount awarded to the aggrieved family. Case Background The litigation stemmed from a tragic incident involving a 27-year-old B.Tech graduate who lost his life allegedly due to medical negligence at Kamineni Hospitals. The deceased's father filed a consumer complaint, leading to proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (APSCDRC) and subsequently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC had impos...

  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 Upholds Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in Employment Contracts By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has provided clarity on the enforceability of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts. The judgment, authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, resolves the conflict between different High Court rulings and establishes that exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment agreements are legally binding and enforceable. Background of the Cases The Court considered two connected appeals involving HDFC Bank. In the first case, Rakesh Kumar Verma, appointed as an Executive in HDFC Bank's Transaction Banking Group in Patna, had his service terminated in 2016. Despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in his appointment letter specifying Mumbai courts, Verma filed a suit in Patna challenging his termination. In the second case, Deepti Bhatia, who worked at HDFC Bank's branch in Delhi, similarly c...

  Supreme Court Denies Bonus Exemption to Factories Run by Charitable Trusts By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark ruling that clarifies the scope of exemptions under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Supreme Court has definitively established that factories operated by charitable trusts cannot claim exemption from paying statutory bonus to their workers. The judgment delivered on April 2, 2025, in the case of The Management of WORTH Trust v. The Secretary, WORTH Trust Workers Union, addresses the critical intersection of charitable purposes and commercial operations under labor welfare legislation. The case concerned the Workshop for Rehabilitation and Training of the Handicapped Trust (WORTH), formerly known as the Swedish Red Cross Rehabilitation Trust, which engages in rehabilitation of leprosy-cured patients and differently abled persons. While WORTH maintained its charitable character, since 1985 it has also conducted commercial manufacturing activities producing automo...

  Supreme Court Affirms Doctrine of Merger and Lis Pendens in Property Dispute Case Analysis of INSC 368/2025: Raju Naidu v. Chenmouga Sundra & Ors. By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3616/2024, reaffirming foundational principles regarding the doctrine of merger, lis pendens, and the limitations of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in property dispute cases. Background of the Case The dispute centered around two properties in Pondicherry referred to as 'A' Schedule property (Door No. 10, Mariamman Kovil Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar) and 'B' Schedule property (Door No. 49, Chetty Street). The father of respondents 1-8 had purchased and subsequently transferred various interests in these properties through sale deeds and wills. The controversy arose when the father executed a sale agreement with the appellant for the 'B' Schedule property while litigation regarding the p...

  Recent Supreme Court and High Court Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis  Author: AbhishekJat, Advocate Magistrates Must Verify Complaint Truthfulness Before Issuing Summons (2025 INSC 399) In a significant ruling that strengthens procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court has established clear guidelines for magistrates regarding complaint verification. In Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (March 26, 2025), the Court emphasized that complainants who suppress material facts or documents should not be permitted to set criminal law in motion. The Court unequivocally stated: "Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law." This ruling places an additional burden on magistrates to scrutinize complaints for completeness and truthfulness before proceeding under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The judgment represents a ...

  Judicial Duty to Safeguard Freedom of Expression Regardless of Content: Supreme Court's Stance Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction In a seminal judgment delivered on March 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in  Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat  (2025 INSC 410) reinforced the inviolability of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The case arose from the criminal prosecution of a Member of Parliament for reciting a poem deemed inflammatory by the Gujarat Police. The Court’s ruling not only quashed the FIR but also laid down critical principles to prevent the misuse of penal laws to suppress dissent, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellant, Imran Pratapgadhi, a Rajya Sabha MP, attended a public event where he recited a poem advocating non-violent resistance to injustice. The poem, which contained lines like...