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...

  Injunction vs. Stay Order vs. Impugned Order — A Jurisprudential Distinction Author: Abhishek Jat  Advocate In the realm of adjudication, certain judicial remedies are often conflated in common parlance due to their similar procedural consequences. However, from a jurisprudential and procedural standpoint, “injunction” , “stay order” , and “impugned order” are distinct legal constructs, each emanating from different statutory provisions, serving divergent purposes, and operating within separate contours of relief. A precise understanding of these terms is indispensable for legal practitioners, litigants, and even judicial officers, as the misapplication of terminology may not only lead to procedural confusion but can also affect the efficacy of the remedy sought. 1. Injunction: A Preventive and Protective Decree An injunction is a judicial command or prohibition issued by a competent court directing a party to perform or abstain from performing a specific act. Its l...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Background The Supreme Court, in the matter of  M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.  (Civil Appeal Nos. 5405-5406 of 2025), addressed the question of whether a subsequent purchaser of property should be added as a party to a suit for specific performance, even though such a purchaser may not be strictly necessary for the suit’s outcome. Factual Matrix The dispute revolved around agricultural land originally owned by Indramohan Pradhan. Conflicting claims arose due to two separate wills and multiple agreements to sell, resulting in three parties asserting title over the same property: The appellant (original defendant no. 8), claiming ownership through a registered sale deed executed by a beneficiary under one will. The original plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the testator’s sons, beneficiaries under another will. The original defendant no. 4, w...

  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...

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...