Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  The Nullity of Decrees Passed Against Deceased Persons: A Legal Analysis By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment delivered in 2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India revisited a fundamental legal principle that has far-reaching implications in civil litigation: the effect of a decree passed against a deceased person. The Court, in no uncertain terms, reaffirmed the well-settled legal doctrine that a decree pronounced against a deceased individual is a nullity and, therefore, devoid of any legal force. This principle, rooted in the bedrock of jurisdictional competence, has been consistently upheld by the judiciary and serves as a critical safeguard against procedural irregularities in civil proceedings. The Case in Perspective The case in question,  Gurnam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) By Lrs. & Ors. , arose from a dispute over the specific performance of a contract related to the sale of agricultural land. The plaintiff, Gurbachan...

  Understanding the Legal Implications of Gas Migration in the Reliance-ONGC Dispute: A Detailed Analysis By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of  Union of India vs. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.  (FAO(OS) (COMM) 201/2023) has brought to light critical issues surrounding the extraction of natural resources, contractual obligations, and the principles of public trust doctrine. This case, which revolves around the migration of natural gas between adjoining blocks operated by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), offers a fascinating insight into the complexities of production sharing contracts (PSCs), arbitration, and the legal responsibilities of private entities in the exploitation of natural resources. Background of the Case The dispute arose from the Krishna-Godavari Basin, where RIL and ONGC operated adjacent blocks. ONGC alleged that natural gas had migrated from its b...

  Cognizance of Offences Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: A Judicial Perspective By: Advocate Abhishek Jat The issue of cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") has been the subject of judicial scrutiny, particularly concerning the validity of complaints filed before the expiration of the statutory 15-day period prescribed under Section 138(c). Additionally, the question arises whether a complainant can refile the complaint if the initial one was premature and the limitation period under Section 142(b) has expired. These issues were definitively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey & Anr. , (2014) 10 SCC 713. Section 138 of the NI Act criminalizes the dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arrangement made with the banker. However, the offence is conditioned by certain procedural requirements stipulated in the prov...

  Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Agreements: A Legal Framework By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In the modern era, intellectual property has emerged as a crucial asset for businesses, innovators, and research institutions. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) agreements are essential legal instruments designed to protect and regulate the ownership, usage, and enforcement of these valuable assets. By clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of involved parties, these agreements help prevent unauthorized exploitation while ensuring that rightful owners receive due recognition and financial benefits. Intellectual property can take various forms, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, all of which require specialized legal protections. IPR agreements serve as legally binding documents that provide clarity on how intellectual property is created, owned, used, and transferred. The importance of these agreements has grown significantly due to increased inno...

  How to Draft an Application Under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate   Introduction The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") provides a structured legal framework for addressing disputes related to dishonored negotiable instruments such as cheques. One of the key provisions under this Act is Section 145, which permits the use of evidence by affidavit. More specifically, Section 145(2) ensures that the accused has the right to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses whose evidence has been tendered by affidavit. This procedural safeguard is critical in cases involving Section 138 of the NI Act, which deals with dishonor of cheques due to insufficient funds or other reasons. This article provides a comprehensive understanding of Section 145(2) and a structured approach to drafting an application seeking cross-examination of the complainant. Additionally, a case study is discussed to highlight its practica...

  Legal Analysis: Patna High Court Upholds Penalty Under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Authored by: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Patna High Court, in the case of M/s Akashdeep Pipes & Fittings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 147 of 2018), reaffirmed the strict interpretation of tax compliance provisions under the Central Excise Act, 1944 . The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act, emphasizing the significance of accurate self-declaration in excise duty payments and the consequences of fraudulent reporting. Case Background The appellant, M/s Akashdeep Pipes & Fittings Pvt. Ltd. , challenged the penalty imposed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) , which upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority. The dispute revolved around the company’s use of fake challan numbers in its ER-1 returns, which falsely indicated duty payments that had not actually bee...

  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Compliance: A Case Study on Delayed CSR Contribution and Its Legal Repercussions By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a statutory obligation under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Companies meeting the prescribed financial thresholds are required to allocate a portion of their profits towards CSR activities or transfer the unspent amount to a specified fund. Non-compliance with this provision invites penalties as per Section 135(7) of the Act. A recent case involving M/s. Ingeteam India Private Limited illustrates the consequences of failing to comply with these statutory requirements. Facts of the Case M/s. Ingeteam India Private Limited, a subsidiary of a foreign entity, was mandated to spend INR 5.09 lakhs on CSR activities for the financial year ending on December 31, 2022. As per Section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, the company was required to either spend the stipu...