S. 138 N. I. Act: Civil recovery suits do not bar criminal prosecution for cheque dishonour

The Delhi High Court in Smt. Rama Oberoi v. State (NCT of Delhi) reaffirmed important principles governing cheque dishonour litigation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). The Court clarified (i) the permissibility of pursuing concurrent civil and criminal remedies, (ii) computation of limitation under Section 138, and (iii) the limits of High Court’s jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)

Category: Criminal Law, Jurisprudence   Posted on: September 4, 2025

Dissolution of Marriage on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown: A Comment on A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha

The Supreme Court of India in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha [1] reaffirmed its power to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of such a statutory provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to bring finality to a matrimonial dispute that had dragged on for more than a decade. The judgment is significant both for its equitable balancing of competing interests and for its reiteration of judicial creativity in family law.

Category: Hindu Marriage Act   Posted on: August 20, 2025

Whether the illegality of the structure would impair the right of the Co-operative Housing Society to seek a certificate for execution of unilateral deemed conveyance of the land and building?

The absence of occupation certificate will not impair the rights of the flat purchasers to obtain certificate of deemed conveyance as the non compliance of the statutory obligations by the Promoter cannot place fetters on the statutory right of the flat purchasers to the conveyance of the Promoter’s right, title and interest in the property

Category: Cooperative Housing Society   Posted on: November 27, 2024

What is the law on the entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriages under the Hindu Succession Act & Hindu Marriage Act?

The provisions of the HSA, 1956 have to be harmonised with the mandate in Section 16(3) of the HMA, 1955 which indicates that a child who is conferred with legitimacy under sub-sections (1) and (2) will not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents. The property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law has to be ascertained in terms of the Explanation to sub-section (3), as interpreted above

Category: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act   Posted on: March 10, 2024

What is “admission” and “admission by party to proceeding or his agent” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Admission is a conscious and deliberate act and not something that could be inferred. An admission could be a positive act of acknowledgement or confession. To constitute an admission, one of the requirements is a voluntary acknowledgement through a statement of the existence of certain facts during the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, which conclude as true or valid the allegations made in the proceedings or in the notice

Category: Indian Evidence Act 1872   Posted on: March 10, 2024

What is the scope & power of contempt jurisdiction vested in the Courts to punish for contempt? Can the Court, in contempt jurisdiction, go beyond the order alleged to be flouted & can it reopen decided issues?

The Courts must not, in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same

Category: Jurisprudence   Posted on: March 10, 2024

Is a contract in favour of a minor enforceable or is it void, even when it is for the benefit of the minor?

As per the Contract Act, 1872 it is clearly stated that for an agreement to become a contract, the parties must be br competent to contract, wherein age of majority is a condition for competency. A contract in the name of a minor cannot be held valid, simply because it is in the interest of the minor unless he or she is represented by his or her natural guardian or guardian appointed by the court.

Category: Jurisprudence   Posted on: March 10, 2024