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.
Non-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 · Criminal LawUAPA Extension Orders: No Appeal Lies – Advocate Manish Jha
A Delhi High Court Division Bench holds that an order extending UAPA investigation time under Section 43D(2)(b) is interlocutory and not appealable under Section 21 NIA Act; the remedy is Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.
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 → 7 August 2026 · Procedure & PracticeConduct in Court and the Bar Council – Advocate Manish Jha
The Supreme Court confirms that State Bar Councils can take cognizance of indecent behaviour by an advocate inside court premises, while modifying a 21-year-old suspension to a warning.
Read → 7 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyRail Passengers and Untoward Incidents – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court upholds NHRC-recommended compensation against the Railways: a violent attack on a ticketed passenger inside a stationary compartment is an untoward incident under the Railways Act.
Read → 6 August 2026 · Criminal LawAcquittal After 22 Years in Prison – Advocate Manish Jha
In Arjun Jani @ Tuntun v. State of Orissa (Crl.A. 3639/2026, 4 August 2026), the Supreme Court acquits a man who spent twenty-two years in prison for a triple murder, holding that a sole eyewitness must inspire confidence and that jail appeals cannot be dismissed on delay alone.
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 → 6 August 2026 · Procedure & PracticeRecalling a Witness: The SC Limits – Advocate Manish Jha
In K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai (2026 INSC 795, 4 August 2026), the Supreme Court holds that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC exists to clarify the court's doubts, not to fill gaps in evidence, and that absence of prejudice is no justification for reopening a closed record.
Read → 6 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyMotor Insurance Overhaul by the SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thungala Dhana Laxmi (2026 INSC 793, 4 August 2026), the Supreme Court holds that a comprehensive policy covers the owner travelling as a passenger and directs ANPR-VAHAN integration and longer third-party cover to tackle uninsured vehicles.
Read → 5 August 2026 · Criminal LawBreach of Contract Is Not Cheating: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In G. Saminathan v. The State (2026 INSC 772, 31 July 2026), the Supreme Court quashes a cheating and criminal breach of trust case born of a failed joint development agreement, holding that dishonest intention must exist at the inception and that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist on the same facts.
Read → 5 August 2026 · Civil & PropertySpecific Performance and Delay: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In V.N.A.S. Chandran v. S. Venila (2026 INSC 776), the Supreme Court refuses specific performance of a 2004 sale agreement, holding that a buyer must prove continuous readiness and willingness and that a lapse of over two decades militates against the equitable relief.
Read → 5 August 2026 · Criminal LawWhen an Acquittal Stands: SC on Evidence – Advocate Manish Jha
In Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan v. State of Maharashtra (2026 INSC 787), the Supreme Court upholds the acquittal of twenty accused, explaining when identical testimony suggests tutoring, when medical evidence displaces ocular accounts, and how investigative lapses weigh.
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.