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.
Writ Courts and SARFAESI: Wrong Door – Advocate Manish Jha
Patna High Court dismisses a borrower's writ against SARFAESI possession and e-auction, reiterating that the DRT under Section 17 is the proper forum.
Read → 30 September 2026 · Matrimonial & FamilyResidence Rights, Wrong Respondent – Advocate Manish Jha
A Delhi trial court orders a daughter-in-law to vacate her mother-in-law's self-acquired flat: the DV Act residence right is the husband's obligation to provide.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Criminal LawAcquitted After Seventeen Years – Advocate Manish Jha
In Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab (2026 INSC 1054), the Supreme Court set aside a rape conviction, holding that a prosecutrix's testimony cannot be partly rejected for one charge and partly accepted for another.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Matrimonial & Family₹35 Lakh Alimony Ends All Cases – Advocate Manish Jha
In Shikha v. State of Odisha (2026 INSC 1060), the Supreme Court gave effect to a matrimonial settlement with ₹35 lakh permanent alimony in two tranches, closing the litigation bundle between the estranged spouses.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Civil & PropertyLost Ticket, Claim Still Alive – Advocate Manish Jha
The Supreme Court (2026 INSC 1056) restored ₹8 lakh compensation to the parents of a passenger who fell from a crowded train, holding that non-recovery of the ticket cannot defeat a bona fide passenger's claim.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Procedure & PracticePreliminary Issues Have a Deadline – Advocate Manish Jha
In John Mathew v. Santha Paul (2026 INSC 1020), the Supreme Court held that once a court embarks on trial of the issues generally, limitation can no longer be carved out as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateMSME Award Restored on Appeal – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court restored a ₹27.76 lakh award made in an MSMED Act Section 18 reference, holding that service-rule objections to the arbitrator are not statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5).
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateAward Capped by the Contract Ceiling – Advocate Manish Jha
A Division Bench upheld the partial setting aside of a ₹911 crore highway arbitration award: a tribunal that enlarges a defined Total Project Cost through extrinsic material rewrites the contract.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateAward Partly Set Aside, Claim Revived – Advocate Manish Jha
In Dwarika Projects v. NOIDA, the Delhi High Court severed the patently illegal rejection of a price variation claim, remitted quantum to fresh arbitration and preserved the rest of the award.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateNew Arbitrator After Void Appointment – Advocate Manish Jha
After awards by unilaterally appointed arbitrators in PWD contracts were set aside, the Delhi High Court declared the Chief Engineer appointment clause void and appointed a fresh sole arbitrator under Section 11, under the aegis of DIAC.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Civil & PropertyTenant's Appeal Fails; Rent Enhanced – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant's RFA against a possession decree: his own admissions proved the tenancy, and mesne profits were fixed at the last rent with 15% enhancement every three years.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Civil & PropertyCOVID Window Saves a Recovery Suit – Advocate Manish Jha
In revision, the Delhi High Court upheld a ₹1 crore recovery suit as within time: the excluded period of 15.03.2020–28.02.2022 restores the full unexpired balance of limitation, not merely ninety days.
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.