These notes are written for litigants and for younger members of the Bar. They explain procedure as it operates in the Delhi courts — the sequence of steps, the timelines that matter, and the points at which a matter is commonly lost. They are general information, not advice on any particular case.
Cheque Cases and Resigned Directors – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court quashed four cheque bounce complaints against a director who had resigned before the cheques were issued, holding that Section 141 NI Act requires specific averments of role and yields to unimpeachable ROC records.
Read → 15 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateGST for Insolvency Professionals – Advocate Manish Jha
A Division Bench held that an advocate acting as an interim resolution professional supplies insolvency and receivership services taxable on forward charge — the reverse charge dispensation covers only legal services rendered as counsel.
Read → 14 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateSection 34 Is Not an Appeal: DHC – Advocate Manish Jha
Dismissing the Union of India's challenge to an award that quashed a Rs 8.55 crore telecom demand against Sterlite Technologies, the Delhi High Court restated that a plausible arbitral view cannot be substituted under Section 34.
Read → 13 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateSection 9 Relief After an Award: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In NPCC v. Ishvakoo, 2026 INSC 828, the Supreme Court holds that even the party which lost the arbitration may obtain interim protection under Section 9 in rare and compelling cases, upholding a Rs 3.5 crore deposit.
Read → 11 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateEx Parte Interim Orders in Arbitration – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court set aside an unreasoned ex parte status quo order of an arbitral tribunal under Section 37(2)(b), restating what interim relief under Section 17 requires.
Read → 8 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateSeat, Venue and Section 9 Courts – Advocate Manish Jha
An exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Jaipur reduced Delhi to a mere venue, and a Section 9 petition for interim measures was dismissed at the threshold.
Read → 7 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateNon-Signatories and Arbitration: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashiesh Shukla (2026 INSC 803), the Supreme Court holds that a consultant-shareholder who never signed the settlement was a veritable party to its arbitration clause, applying Cox and Kings.
Read → 7 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateA Court Deposit Is Not Payment: Delhi HC – Advocate Manish Jha
A Section 34 stay deposit remains the depositor's asset. An award-holder that skipped the insolvency process saw its claim extinguished, and the Rs 5.52 crore deposit returned to the resolved company.
Read → 6 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateCheque Bounce: Presumptions Prevail – Advocate Manish Jha
In Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah (2026 INSC 790, 4 August 2026), the Supreme Court restores a Section 138 NI Act conviction, holding that an admitted signature triggers the statutory presumptions and that a High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in revision against concurrent findings.
Read →What Is Covered Here
The chamber writes on the areas in which it appears: criminal procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, bail practice, matrimonial and family proceedings before the Delhi Family Courts, cheque dishonour and recovery, and proceedings before the NCLT and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. Notes on reported judgments of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi are published with a link to the official text of the decision, so that a reader can verify the position rather than rely on a summary.
No article on this page identifies a client or discusses a pending matter conducted by the chamber. Where a statutory provision is cited, the section number is given so that a reader can verify it against the bare Act.