Abhijeet Gupta & Associates, Law Firm

Case Name: Explained: Can FIR Be Registered Against a Sitting Judge? Bench: Supreme Court of India Summary: This article addresses the intricate question of whether an FIR can be registered against a sitting judge and explains the in-house inquiry procedure for complaints against judges. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy, and as such, judges are granted immunity from direct prosecution unless specific conditions are met. The procedure involves obtaining prior permission from the Chief Justice of India, followed by an in-house inquiry to evaluate the allegations before any formal legal action can proceed. The article also discusses the importance of balancing judicial accountability with the sanctity of the judiciary's independence. This ensures that judges can perform their duties without fear or bias, while still holding them accountable for misconduct. The process exemplifies the judiciary's self-regulation mechanisms and safeguards the trust placed in this vital institution. How Our Lawyers Can Help: Our experienced legal team can guide you in navigating complaints involving judiciary members. We provide expert advice on the procedure, prepare required documentation, and assist with in-house inquiry processes. Trust us for sound legal solutions while respecting the judiciary's independence. #JudicialAccountability #KnowTheLaw #LegalAwareness #SupremeCourt #JudicialIndependence #LawAndJustice #LegalSolutions

Case Name: Flat Seller v. Financier of Buyer Bench: Supreme Court of India Summary: The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the doctrine of "privity of contract" in this case, holding that a consumer complaint cannot be filed against a party without a direct contractual relationship. A flat seller sought to file a consumer complaint against the financier of the buyer, alleging unfair practices. The Court dismissed the complaint, clarifying that the seller, lacking a direct contract with the financier, could not claim consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and highlights that claims can only be made against parties directly involved in a contractual relationship. It serves as a crucial precedent for financial and real estate transactions, urging parties to structure their contracts carefully to safeguard their rights. How Our Lawyers Can Help: Our team specializes in consumer and contract law. We offer expert advice, draft strong agreements, and represent you in court or consumer forums, ensuring your rights are upheld. Contact us for personalized legal solutions. #ConsumerRights #ContractLaw #SupremeCourtJudgment #LegalAwareness #KnowYourRights #RealEstateLaw #ConsumerProtection #LegalSolutions

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Offenses Involving Small Quantities Under NDPS Act Are Bailable Under BNSS, 2023 In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, involving small quantities are bailable under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. As a result, accused persons in such cases are entitled to bail without filing a formal bail application, provided they furnish the requisite bail Facts of the Case The case involved the recovery of 1 gram of heroin. The petitioner was booked under the NDPS Act based on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, which alleged that the heroin was purchased from the petitioner. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, which was initially denied by the lower court. Court’s Reasoning The High Court observed that under the NDPS Act, offenses involving small quantities (as defined in E. Michael Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161) attract lesser penalties. However, the Act does not explicitly classify these offenses as bailable. The court referred to Section 176(2) of the BNSS, 2023, which stipulates that offenses punishable with imprisonment for less than three years are bailable unless expressly stated otherwise. Since small-quantity offenses under the NDPS Act carry a maximum sentence of one year (Section 27 of the NDPS Act), the court held that they are bailable by operation of BNSS, 2023. Legal Precedents Considered • Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 – Affirmed that confessions under NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence. • State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 – Laid down safeguards for searches and seizures under the NDPS Act. Judgment Setting aside the lower court’s order, the High Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to bail without filing a separate bail application, subject to furnishing bail bonds. This ruling ensures that minor NDPS offenses are treated in line with general criminal law principles under BNSS, 2023. #supremecourtofindia #punjab #panjab #punjabdrugs #punjabi #ndps #ndpsact #highcourtsofindia #punjabhighcourt

Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 306 Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan The Supreme Court has ruled that an agreement to lease does not grant any legal rights unless the lease deed is executed and registered. This decision was delivered while allowing an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The court emphasized that simply signing an agreement cannot create legal interest in immovable property. Relying on earlier judgments such as Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons (2000) 6 SCC 394, the court reiterated that an unregistered lease agreement exceeding one year is not enforceable in law. Another case, State of Maharashtra v. Atur India Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 497, supported the view that leasehold rights come into effect only after proper execution and registration as per the Registration Act, 1908, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The bench further highlighted that under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, an unregistered lease agreement cannot transfer property rights. This aligns with Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property and mandates legal procedures for ownership claims. As a team of experienced lawyers, we can help you navigate property law, ensure your lease agreements comply with all legal requirements, and protect your rights. Property rights matter. Let us help you safeguard them! #SupremeCourt #PropertyLaw #LeaseAgreement #LegalHelp #LandmarkJudgment

Champions on the field, champions in the courtroom – just like India's sports legends, our legal firm delivers results with dedication, precision, and unmatched expertise.

In a landmark ruling on March 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified that complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce cases) cannot be transferred under Section 406 CrPC solely due to territorial jurisdiction challenges. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that territorial jurisdiction issues must be addressed by the trial court itself. Section 406 CrPC applies only to ensure a fair trial or prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court outlined that transfers under Section 406 CrPC are appropriate in cases involving threats, local influence, conflicting judgments, or language barriers. It emphasized that mere inconvenience, like travel hardships, doesn’t justify transfer. This ruling prevents misuse of transfer petitions to delay proceedings and reinforces that procedural objections should be raised at the trial court, safeguarding judicial efficiency. #SupremeCourt #ChequeBounce #Section406 #TerritorialJurisdiction #LegalClarity

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that arbitration agreements remain enforceable even after the death of a party, binding their legal representatives. This landmark ruling in Rahul Verma & Others vs Rampat Lal Verma & Others (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 269) emphasized the continuity of arbitration clauses posthumously. Bench and Legal Precedents A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment. Key precedents cited include: 1. Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 667, confirming that arbitration agreements survive the death of a party. 2. Jyoti Gupta v. Kewalsons & Ors. (2018 SCC OnLine Del 7942), where the Delhi High Court ruled that arbitration clauses bind legal heirs in partnership disputes. Court’s Observations and Rationale The case stemmed from a Gauhati High Court judgment that referred the legal heirs of a deceased partner to arbitration. The appellants contested their binding to the agreement as non-signatories, but the Supreme Court held: Legal heirs are bound by arbitration clauses as they inherit the obligations of the deceased. Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ensures the continuation of arbitration proceedings even after a party's demise. Rendition of accounts and claims arising from partnership agreements survive, allowing legal representatives to assert or defend claims. Implications of the Ruling This ruling bolsters arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism, ensuring that contractual obligations extend seamlessly to legal heirs. It enhances the reliability of arbitration clauses in business and partnership agreements, promoting legal certainty and efficiency. Counsel Representation For Petitioners: Ms. Shagufa Salim For Respondents: Mr. Pavan Kumar Chaturvedi This judgment reinforces the sanctity of arbitration agreements, even in the event of a party's death. #SupremeCourt #ArbitrationLaw #LegalHeirs #DisputeResolution #ContractLaw #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw #Justice #ArbitrationAct #LegalNews #PartnershipLaw

Delhi High Court Ruling on Pre-Institution Mediation In the case of RenewFlex Recycling v. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors. [2025:DHC:1020-DB], the Delhi High Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Background: RenewFlex Recycling supplied goods worth ₹5,57,550 to DP Polymers, but payment remained pending. After sending a legal notice and requesting mediation in December 2024, the petitioner filed a suit in January 2025. However, the court rejected it for non-compliance with Section 12A, as no formal mediation certificate was obtained. Court’s Decision: Strict Compliance: The Court stated that pre-institution mediation must be conducted through authorities designated under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Unilateral Actions Not Valid: Issuing a legal notice or informal mediation requests do not meet statutory requirements. Legislative Intent: Following the prescribed process ensures efficient resolution of disputes and prevents unnecessary delays. Outcome: The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of following statutory mediation procedures before filing commercial suits. Key Message: Pre-institution mediation isn’t optional—it’s a legal mandate for timely and effective dispute resolution. Hashtags: #DelhiHighCourt #CommercialDisputes #LegalUpdate #MediationMatters #AccessToJustice #IndianLaw

Supreme Court Cancels Preferential Land Allotments to Officials Case: XYZ v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 872 Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta In the landmark case of XYZ v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the government’s policy of preferential land allotments to influential individuals, including Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), judges, and senior government officials, in Hyderabad. The Court ruled on November 27, 2024, that these allotments were unconstitutional as they violated principles of equality and fairness outlined in the Constitution. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, declared that the policy disproportionately benefited a privileged few who could already afford land, while ignoring socio-economically disadvantaged groups who genuinely needed government support. The Court emphasized that public resources like land should be distributed transparently and fairly to ensure equal opportunities for all. The judges criticized the state government’s actions as an abuse of power, stating that such policies perpetuate inequality and undermine constitutional values. The Court ordered the cancellation of all such preferential allotments and directed that the lands be returned to the government. It also instructed that future allotments must adhere to constitutional principles, prioritizing fairness, equality, and transparency. This judgment has far-reaching implications for the management of public resources in India. By invalidating policies that serve the interests of the elite at the expense of the public, the Supreme Court has reinforced its commitment to justice and equality. The ruling sends a clear message: government policies must benefit the majority of citizens and not just a select few. This decision upholds public trust in the judicial system and reaffirms the need for fairness in state actions. #SupremeCourt #LandAllotment #EqualityForAll #ConstitutionalRights #JusticePrevails #PublicResources #LegalUpdates #Transparency #IndianLaw #JudicialReform

YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, popularly known as Beer Biceps, is facing multiple FIRs across Maharashtra and Assam over allegedly obscene statements made during the ‘India’s Got Latent’ show. The FIRs cite charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, including insulting a woman’s modesty, promoting hatred between groups, insulting religious beliefs, and engaging in obscene acts in public places, along with Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, which addresses obscene content online. Following social media outrage, Allahabadia issued a public apology, acknowledging his comments were inappropriate. Despite this, legal actions have intensified. The Mumbai Police and Maharashtra Cyber Department have summoned Allahabadia and comedian Samay Raina for questioning. Meanwhile, a delegation of advocates in Kota has also filed complaints against them, accusing the show of promoting obscenity and violating cultural values. Allahabadia’s plea for urgent relief from the FIRs was declined by the Supreme Court, which stated the matter would be heard in the next two to three days. Concerns about potential coercive action by Assam police were raised before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, who acknowledged the urgency of the matter but assigned a listing date for the petition. In 2024, Allahabadia was awarded the Disruptor of the Year award at the National Creators Award by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, the current controversy has put him at the center of a legal storm, with investigations and proceedings continuing to unfold. #RanveerAllahabadia #BeerBiceps #SupremeCourt #LegalControversy #ObscenityCase #SocialMediaOutrage #DigitalContentCreators