ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Discharge

  • Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 07.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Mangla vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing the issue of delayed GST refunds and the obligations of tax authorities to comply with appellate orders. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its background, the legal proceedings, and the implications for taxpayers and authorities under the GST regime.

    Background of the Case

    Brij Mohan Mangla, a manufacturer of liquid printing inks, was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). During the period from May 2019 to December 2019, he accumulated an input tax credit (ITC) of β‚Ή74,02,337 due to an inverted duty structure, which occurs when the tax rate on inputs is higher than the tax rate on outputs. Unable to utilize the ITC fully, Mangla filed six separate refund applications for the relevant period.

    Timeline of Refund Applications

    Date of FilingPeriodAmount (INR)
    09.12.2020May 20198,89,402
    23.12.2020June 20197,39,443
    07.01.2021July 201910,62,596
    07.01.2021August 201911,12,574
    22.01.2021September 20199,72,486
    16.03.2021Oct–Dec 201926,25,836
    Total74,02,337

    Initial Rejection and Appeals

    The refund claims were not processed. Instead, the authorities issued show cause notices, citing two main reasons for rejection:

    1. Non-existence at Registered Premises: Physical verification allegedly found the business non-existent at the declared address.
    2. Cancellation of GST Registration: The GSTIN was cancelled with effect from 19.02.2021.

    Mangla responded, clarifying that he had shifted his business premises after the relevant period. Despite this, the refund applications were rejected on the grounds that he was not a “registered person” at the time of application, as required under Section 54(3) of the GST Act.

    Mangla appealed these decisions. The Appellate Authority ruled in his favor, confirming that he was indeed a registered person during the relevant period and entitled to the refund. The Authority also directed restoration of his GST registration.

    Continued Non-Compliance by Authorities

    Despite the appellate orders, the authorities did not process the refunds. Instead, they issued deficiency memos and repeated the same objections already settled by the Appellate Authority. The authorities argued that they intended to appeal the appellate orders and thus withheld the refunds.

    High Court’s Judgment

    The Delhi High Court found the authorities’ conduct unacceptable, emphasizing the following points:

    1. Obligation to Implement Appellate Orders: Authorities cannot ignore or withhold implementation of appellate orders merely because they intend to file an appeal, unless a stay is obtained.
    2. Rule of Law: Allowing authorities to disregard appellate decisions undermines the rule of law.
    3. Direction to Disburse Refunds: The Court directed the authorities to process and disburse the refunds, including applicable interest, without further delay.
    4. Right to Appeal Preserved: The authorities retain the right to challenge the appellate orders, but must comply with them unless and until they are set aside.

    Implications and Takeaways

    • For Taxpayers: This judgment reinforces the rights of taxpayers to timely refunds and the enforceability of appellate decisions.
    • For Authorities: Tax authorities must comply with appellate orders unless a stay is granted by a higher forum. Delays or non-compliance can be challenged in court.
    • For the GST Regime: The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need for efficient dispute resolution mechanisms under GST.

    Conclusion

    The Brij Mohan Mangla case sets a precedent for the prompt implementation of appellate orders in GST matters. It serves as a reminder that administrative authorities are bound by the rule of law and must respect judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, ensuring justice for taxpayers.

    Connected Matter

    Bombay High Court Orders Refund of Pre-Deposit for Dropped GST Demand Despite Pending Appeal

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay High Court on Rejection of Suit for Joint Ownership of Common Amenities

    Bombay High Court on Rejection of Suit for Joint Ownership of Common Amenities

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 05.09.2026

    Bombay High Court on Rejection of Suit for Joint Ownership of Common Amenities

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court has brought clarity to the rights of cooperative housing societies regarding common amenities and conveyance of property in large residential layouts. The case, involving Laxmi Charitable Trust and several cooperative societies, revolved around the ownership and use of recreation grounds and internal roads within a multi-plot layout in Andheri, Mumbai.

    Background of the Dispute

    The plaintiffs, three cooperative housing societies, filed a suit seeking joint ownership and conveyance of common amenitiesβ€”specifically, recreation grounds (RG) and internal access roadsβ€”under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and its Rules. The societies had already secured deemed conveyance of their respective plots (A, B, and C) but claimed further rights over RGs and roads situated on plots D, E, and F, which were owned by educational trusts.

    The defendants, including Laxmi Charitable Trust and Mathuradas Vissanji Female Education Trust, challenged the suit, arguing that:

    • The trusts acquired ownership of plots D and E before MOFA came into force.
    • The trusts were not promoters under MOFA and had no statutory obligation to convey land to the societies.
    • The suit was based on non-existent legal provisions and lacked a valid cause of action.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Cause of Action: Did the societies have a legal basis to claim joint ownership and conveyance of common amenities on plots not owned by them?
    2. Applicability of MOFA: Could MOFA obligations be enforced against trusts that acquired property before the Act’s commencement and were not promoters?
    3. Validity of Cited Rules: The plaintiffs relied on sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 9 of the MOF Rules, which, as the Court found, do not exist.
    4. Interpretation of Layout Conditions: Did the sanctioned layout and municipal conditions mandate joint ownership or only maintenance of RGs?

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Ownership and Timing

    • The trusts acquired plots D and E in 1962 and 1963, before MOFA became applicable in Mumbai (1964).
    • The societies admitted in their pleadings that the trusts were the owners of these plots prior to MOFA.

    2. No Statutory Obligation for Conveyance

    • The trusts were not promoters under MOFA and thus had no statutory duty to convey land or amenities to the societies.
    • The plaintiffs’ reliance on non-existent sub-rules of Rule 9 was unfounded; Rule 9 only prescribes the period for conveyance, not the obligation to convey common amenities in the manner claimed.

    3. Misinterpretation of Layout and FSI

    • The sanctioned layout required maintenance of RGs but did not mandate joint ownership for the entire layout.
    • Each society’s building plans and FSI (Floor Space Index) calculations were plot-specific, not based on the entire layout.
    • The plaintiffs’ claims that RGs and FSI were shared across all plots were contradicted by the sanctioned plans and municipal records.

    4. Vexatious Litigation and Lack of Cause of Action

    • The Court found that the suit was based on false premises and clever drafting, creating an illusion of a cause of action where none existed.
    • The suit was deemed vexatious and an abuse of the judicial process, as it sought to claim playgrounds used by schools and colleges for the societies’ benefit.

    Final Judgment

    • The Bombay High Court set aside the City Civil Court’s order and allowed the revision applications filed by the trusts and Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd.
    • The plaint in L.C. Suit No. 3712 of 2017 was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for not disclosing a cause of action.
    • The suit was dismissed, and all interim applications were disposed of.

    Key Takeaways for Housing Societies and Trusts

    1. Statutory Rights Must Be Clearly Established: Societies must base their claims on existing statutory provisions and not on imagined or non-existent rules.
    2. Ownership and Timing Matter: Rights under MOFA cannot be enforced against parties who acquired property before the Act’s commencement and are not promoters.
    3. Layout Conditions Are Binding: Maintenance obligations in sanctioned layouts do not automatically confer ownership rights over common amenities.
    4. Courts Will Dismiss Vexatious Suits: The judiciary will not entertain cleverly drafted suits that lack real substance or are contrary to documentary evidence.

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the importance of clear legal foundations for property claims and the need for societies to carefully examine statutory provisions and documentary evidence before initiating litigation. It also protects educational trusts and similar entities from unwarranted claims over their properties by neighboring societies.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Railway Compensation: Passenger Rights and No-Fault Liability

    Supreme Court Clarifies Railway Compensation: Passenger Rights and No-Fault Liability

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 03.09.2026

    Supreme Court Clarifies Railway Compensation: Passenger Rights and No-Fault Liability

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Lata v. Union of India has brought significant clarity to the rights of railway passengers and their families regarding compensation for untoward incidents, such as accidental falls from trains. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal framework, and its broader implications for railway safety and passenger rights in India.

    Case Background

    The appellant, Lata, filed a claim for compensation after her husband, Chandrakant Thakkar, died from falling off a running train (Train No. 12834 Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail) in November 2015. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court both dismissed her claim, citing the absence of proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, as his ticket was not recovered. Lata appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that her husband was indeed a valid ticket holder and a victim of an untoward incident as defined by law.

    Legal Framework

    Key Provisions of the Railways Act

    • Section 123(c)(2): Defines “untoward incident” to include accidental falling of any passenger from a train.
    • Section 124A: Establishes “no-fault liability” for the Railways, making them liable to pay compensation for death or injury resulting from untoward incidents, regardless of negligence, with certain exceptions (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal acts).
    • Section 2(29): Defines a “passenger” as someone traveling with a valid ticket or pass.

    Burden of Proof

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a ticket on the deceased does not automatically disqualify a claim. The initial burden is on the claimant to establish bona fide travel, which can be done through affidavits and circumstantial evidence. Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.

    Court’s Analysis and Ruling

    Liberal Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation

    The Court reiterated that welfare statutes like the Railways Act must be interpreted liberally to fulfill their humanitarian purpose. Technicalities should not defeat the objective of providing accessible compensation to victims and their families.

    Railway Duties and Passenger Safety

    The judgment reviewed various Railway Manuals and statutory duties, highlighting:

    • The responsibility of railway staff to ensure passenger safety, prevent overcrowding, and check tickets at multiple points.
    • The need for proper record-keeping and enforcement to prevent unauthorized travel and overcrowding, which are frequent causes of accidents.

    Overcrowding and Recent Incidents

    The Court cited several recent incidents of deaths and injuries due to overcrowding, underlining the persistent risks faced by passengers. Despite guidelines, overcrowding remains a major safety challenge.

    Shared Responsibility

    While the Railways have a duty to enforce safety protocols, the Court also noted that passengers must act responsibly and avoid risky behaviors, such as traveling on footboards or overcrowded compartments.

    Final Decision

    The Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in denying compensation solely due to the missing ticket. The appellant’s affidavit and circumstances established bona fide travel. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 to the appellant, as per the latest rules, with interest if not paid within four weeks.

    Implications and Recommendations

    1. For Passengers:
      • Always retain travel documents and avoid risky travel practices.
      • In case of an incident, affidavits and circumstantial evidence can support compensation claims.
    2. For Railways:
      • Strengthen enforcement of safety protocols and ticket checks.
      • Address overcrowding through operational improvements and increased capacity.
      • Improve record-keeping to reduce disputes over passenger status.
    3. For Policymakers:
      • Consider reforms to further simplify compensation processes.
      • Invest in modernization and manpower to enhance safety and service quality.

    Conclusion

    This Supreme Court judgment marks a progressive step in protecting the rights of railway passengers and their families. By prioritizing the welfare intent of the law over procedural technicalities, the Court has reinforced the humanitarian objectives of the Railways Act and set a precedent for future compensation claims.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision: Compensation Ordered for Railway Accident Victim’s Family

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision: Compensation Ordered for Railway Accident Victim’s Family

    Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision: Compensation Ordered for Railway Accident Victim’s Family

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 02.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision: Compensation Ordered for Railway Accident Victim’s Family

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sweety Kumari & Ors. vs. Union of India, addressing the rights of victims’ families in railway accident compensation claims. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for future claims under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

    Background of the Case

    On November 1, 2017, Vivek Kumar, a 35-year-old passenger, was traveling from Ghaziabad to Chhapra by train. Due to heavy crowding, he stood near the compartment door. As the train approached Dasna Flyover, Ghaziabad, a sudden jerk caused him to fall from the moving train, resulting in fatal injuries. The journey ticket was reportedly lost during the incident.

    The deceased’s family filed a compensation claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim, citing the non-recovery of the journey ticket and lack of eyewitnesses. The family appealed this decision to the Delhi High Court.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Proof of Bona Fide Passenger Status

    The central question was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, given the absence of the journey ticket. The appellants argued that the ticket was lost in the accident, and the deceased’s father provided an affidavit affirming that his son had purchased a valid ticket. The Court referenced Supreme Court precedents, notably Union of India v. Rina Devi, which clarified that claimants need only establish foundational facts, such as the purchase of a ticket, to shift the burden of proof to the Railways.

    2. Nature of the Incident: “Untoward Incident”

    The Court examined whether the death qualified as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Police and medical records confirmed the location and cause of death, supporting the family’s account. The Railways relied on a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) inquiry conducted over a year after the incident, which failed to provide contemporaneous evidence or contradict the family’s version.

    3. Evidentiary Value of Delayed Inquiries

    The Court criticized the delayed DRM inquiry, noting that such delays undermine the reliability of findings. Citing previous judgments, the Court held that delayed inquiries lacking contemporaneous records cannot outweigh immediate police and medical evidence.

    Court’s Findings and Decision

    After reviewing all evidence, the Court concluded:

    1. The deceased was a bona fide passenger, as established by the father’s affidavit and lack of contrary evidence from the Railways.
    2. The death resulted from an accidental fall, constituting an “untoward incident” under the Act.
    3. The delayed DRM inquiry held little evidentiary value.

    The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, remanded the matter for assessment of compensation, and directed the authorities to disburse the amount within two months of the Tribunal’s order.

    Implications of the Judgment

    This ruling reinforces several important principles:

    1. Affidavits and Foundational Facts: Claimants can rely on affidavits and circumstantial evidence to establish bona fide passenger status when tickets are lost in accidents.
    2. Contemporaneous Evidence Prevails: Immediate police and medical records carry more weight than delayed internal inquiries by the Railways.
    3. Burden of Proof: Once foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s decision in Sweety Kumari & Ors. vs. Union of India is a landmark for railway accident compensation law. It clarifies the evidentiary standards for claimants and underscores the importance of timely and credible investigations. Families of accident victims now have clearer guidance on their rights and the process for seeking justice under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Clarifies Railway Compensation: Passenger Rights and No-Fault Liability

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bombay High Court Orders Refund of Pre-Deposit for Dropped GST Demand Despite Pending Appeal

    Bombay High Court Orders Refund of Pre-Deposit for Dropped GST Demand Despite Pending Appeal

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 01.09.2026

    Bombay High Court Orders Refund of Pre-Deposit for Dropped GST Demand Despite Pending Appeal

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court in the case of IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India has clarified the legal position regarding the refund of pre-deposit amounts under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for taxpayers facing similar disputes.

    Background of the Case

    IBM India Pvt. Ltd. challenged an order rejecting its application for a refund of the pre-deposit paid during GST appellate proceedings. The company had initially faced a tax demand of approximately Rs. 48.96 crores, which was later reduced by 64% (to Rs. 17.50 crores) by the First Appellate Authority. IBM sought a refund of the pre-deposit corresponding to the dropped demand (Rs. 3.14 crores), but the refund was denied on the grounds that appellate proceedings had not attained finality, as IBM intended to further appeal the portion of the order that went against it.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Finality of Appellate Proceedings:
      • The tax authorities argued that a refund of pre-deposit is only permissible once all appellate proceedings are concluded, citing Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST.
      • IBM contended that the refund claim pertained only to the portion of the demand dropped, which was not under further dispute.
    2. Distinction Between Disputed and Undisputed Amounts:
      • The authorities maintained that since IBM intended to appeal the adverse portion, the entire proceedings lacked finality.
      • The High Court clarified that finality is achieved for the portion of the demand that is not being challenged further, and the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of the pre-deposit corresponding to that portion.
    3. Nature of Pre-Deposit:
      • The Court reiterated that pre-deposit is not a tax or duty but a security deposit, which must be refunded if the taxpayer succeeds (fully or partly) in appeal.

    Court’s Findings and Order

    • The Court found the tax authority’s reasoning erroneous, stating that only the portion of the order being further appealed lacks finality. For the dropped demand (Rs. 31.45 crores), the proceedings had attained finality, and IBM was entitled to a proportionate refund of the pre-deposit.
    • The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the authorities to process and refund Rs. 3.14 crores to IBM within six weeks.
    • IBM graciously waived its claim for statutory interest on the refund, focusing only on the principal amount.

    Implications for Taxpayers

    1. Clarity on Refund Eligibility:
      • Taxpayers can claim a refund of pre-deposit amounts corresponding to the portion of demand dropped in appeal, even if they intend to challenge the remaining adverse portion.
    2. Administrative Guidance:
      • Tax authorities must distinguish between the finality of different portions of an appellate order and process refunds accordingly.
    3. Legal Precedent:
      • This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that taxpayers are not unjustly denied refunds due to ongoing disputes on unrelated portions of the demand.

    Conclusion

    The Bombay High Court’s decision in IBM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India is a significant development in GST litigation. It upholds the taxpayer’s right to a timely refund of pre-deposit amounts for demands set aside in appeal, providing much-needed clarity and relief to businesses navigating the appellate process under GST.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Court-Auction Sales

    Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Court-Auction Sales

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 31.08.2026

    Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Court-Auction Sales

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Pahwa v. Universal Polychem (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. has provided significant clarity on the legal procedures and principles governing court-conducted property auctions. This article offers a detailed analysis of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications for future auction sales under Indian law.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from the auction of property No. J-60, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, conducted to satisfy a court decree. The auction was held under the supervision of a Court Auctioneer, with a reserve price set at Rs. 1,70,00,000. Multiple bidders, including the appellant Radhey Shyam Pahwa and respondent Lokesh Mendiratta, participated.

    During the auction, a disagreement emerged regarding the increment (lot size) for bids. While the Court Auctioneer set the increment at Rs. 10,00,000, some bidders requested a reduction to Rs. 1,00,000 once the bidding reached Rs. 2,50,00,000. The Auctioneer declined, but noted all bids for transparency. Ultimately, Lokesh Mendiratta’s bid of Rs. 2,60,00,000 was recorded as the highest in accordance with the set lot size, though Pahwa offered Rs. 2,61,00,000, which was not accepted as it did not conform to the prescribed increment.

    Legal Issues and Arguments

    Appellant’s Contentions

    1. Irregularities and Fraud Alleged:
      • The appellant argued that the auction process was marred by irregularities, including the arbitrary fixation of the lot size and lack of transparency.
      • He claimed that as the highest bidder (Rs. 2,61,00,000), he should have been declared the purchaser.
    2. Mandatory Compliance with CPC:
      • Cited Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which require the highest bidder to deposit 25% of the bid immediately and the balance within 15 days.
      • Argued that these timelines should run from the date of the auction and identification of the highest bidder.
    3. Precedents Relied Upon:
      • Relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing strict compliance with auction rules and timelines, and the need for fairness and transparency in court auctions.

    Respondent’s Contentions

    1. No Declaration of Purchaser at Auction:
      • The respondent argued that the Court Auctioneer did not declare any bidder as the purchaser on the auction date due to disputes over the highest bid.
      • The matter was referred to the Executing Court for a final decision.
    2. Compliance with Court Orders:
      • Both the appellant and respondent deposited 25% of their respective bids, but the final declaration of the purchaser was made only by the court in its impugned order.
      • The respondent deposited the remaining 75% of the bid amount immediately after being declared the successful purchaser.
    3. Legal Principle:
      • Cited case law establishing that in court-supervised auctions, the sale is not complete until the court formally declares the purchaser and confirms the sale.

    Court’s Analysis and Decision

    The High Court meticulously analyzed the auction process, the relevant provisions of the CPC, and the arguments of both parties. Key findings include:

    1. Authority of the Court Auctioneer:
      • The Auctioneer was empowered by the Proclamation of Sale to set the bid increment. The lot size of Rs. 10,00,000 was validly fixed and announced.
    2. Declaration of Purchaser:
      • No purchaser was declared at the auction due to disputes. The Executing Court, after considering objections, declared Lokesh Mendiratta as the successful purchaser.
    3. Timelines for Deposit:
      • The mandatory timelines under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC for depositing the purchase money commence only after the court declares the purchaser, not merely upon the conclusion of the auction.
      • Since the declaration occurred on 05.05.2026, and the respondent deposited the balance amount on the same day, there was no violation of the CPC provisions.
    4. Objections and Non-Compliance:
      • The appellant’s objections regarding the lot size and the auction process were found to be without merit.
      • The court held that mere non-compliance with interim directions (such as deposit deadlines before the purchaser was declared) did not invalidate the sale, as the core issue of the successful purchaser was unresolved at that stage.
    5. Final Outcome:
      • The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Executing Court’s order declaring Lokesh Mendiratta as the successful purchaser and confirmed the auction sale.

    Key Legal Takeaways

    1. Court’s Role in Auction Sales:
      • In court-supervised auctions, the sale is not complete until the court formally declares the purchaser and confirms the sale, even if the highest bid is recorded at the auction.
    2. Strict Compliance with Auction Terms:
      • Bidders must adhere to the terms set out in the Proclamation of Sale, including bid increments. Deviations may result in bids being disregarded.
    3. Timelines for Payment:
      • The 25% and 75% payment requirements under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC are triggered only after the court’s declaration of the purchaser.
    4. Transparency and Fairness:
      • The court reaffirmed the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to procedure in judicial auctions to protect the interests of all parties.

    Implications for Future Auctions

    This judgment provides a clear precedent for handling disputes in court-conducted auctions. It underscores the importance of following the auction terms and the central role of the court in finalizing the sale. Bidders and legal practitioners should ensure strict compliance with all procedural requirements and be aware that the court’s declaration is the definitive step in concluding a judicial auction.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court

    Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 29.08.2026

    Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Pinaki Mishra v. State & Anr., quashing a criminal defamation case against Pinaki Mishra. This article provides a detailed overview of the case background, legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications for defamation law in India.

    Background of the Case

    1. Origin of the Dispute
      • The controversy began when Siddhartha Singh filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi, alleging professional misconduct by Pinaki Mishra.
      • Following this, Mishra allegedly referred to Singh as a “crook” and “black mailer” in a response and in an interview published by Dailyhunt News.
      • Singh filed two separate criminal complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation, leading to summoning orders against Mishra.
    2. Proceedings in Lower Courts
      • The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) took cognizance of the complaints and summoned Mishra to face trial.
      • Mishra challenged the summoning order and the underlying complaint, seeking their quashing before the Delhi High Court.

    Legal Arguments Presented

    Arguments by Pinaki Mishra (Petitioner)

    1. Lack of Prima Facie Evidence
      • Mishra argued that the complainant failed to produce any witness (other than himself) to establish that the alleged defamatory statements had actually lowered his reputation in the eyes of others, as required by Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC.
    2. Admissibility of Evidence
      • The online news article was not proved through its reporter, nor was it accompanied by the necessary certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it inadmissible as evidence.
    3. Procedural Irregularities
      • The complaint was based on hearsay and secondary evidence, and the complainant had not fulfilled the legal requirements for establishing defamation.
    4. Non-Appearance of Complainant
      • The complainant remained absent for extended periods, further weakening the case.

    Arguments by Siddhartha Singh (Respondent)

    • Singh maintained that the statements were defamatory and had harmed his reputation, and that the court at the summoning stage only needed to see if a prima facie case existed.
    • He argued that disputed facts and evidentiary issues should be decided at trial, not at the stage of issuing summons.

    Judicial Reasoning and Findings

    1. Requirement of Prima Facie Evidence
      • The Court emphasized that to constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation that lowers the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others.
      • Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court held that the complainant must produce at least one witness (other than himself) to show that his reputation was actually lowered.
    2. Admissibility of Online News Reports
      • The Court noted that the news article was not proved by examining the reporter or providing the required electronic evidence certification, rendering it hearsay and inadmissible.
    3. Absence of Foundational Material
      • The complainant’s failure to provide independent evidence or witnesses meant that the basic ingredients of the offence were not established, even at the prima facie stage.
    4. Judicial Discretion and Abuse of Process
      • The Court found that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice and would subject the petitioner to unnecessary hardship.

    Outcome

    • The Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order and all consequential proceedings against Pinaki Mishra, allowing his petition.

    Broader Implications for Defamation Law

    1. Higher Threshold for Summoning in Defamation Cases
      • Complainants must provide independent evidence that the alleged defamatory statement actually harmed their reputation in the eyes of others.
    2. Strict Admissibility Standards for Electronic Evidence
      • Online publications must be properly proved in court, including certification and examination of relevant witnesses.
    3. Judicial Scrutiny at the Summoning Stage
      • Courts must ensure that the basic statutory requirements are met before issuing process in criminal defamation cases.

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal defamation proceedings cannot be initiated lightly. The requirement for independent evidence and proper proof of publication serves as a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious litigation. The decision is a significant precedent for future defamation cases involving online publications and highlights the importance of procedural rigor in criminal law.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

    Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 27.08.2026

    Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on April 7, 2008, addressed the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dacoity with murder. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal principles involved, and the implications of the verdict.

    Background of the Case

    • Incident: On September 24, 1982, Tilak Raj returned home to find his wife, Kamlesh Kumari, being dragged by Raj Kumar @ Raju and three others, all armed with knives. The accused looted the house and murdered Kamlesh Kumari before fleeing.
    • Investigation: The police arrested six individuals, including Raj Kumar @ Raju, and charged them under Sections 396 (dacoity with murder), 412 (receiving stolen property), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
    • Trial Court Verdict: The II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, convicted four accused under Section 396, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Two accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
    • Appeals: The High Court of Uttaranchal upheld the convictions. Raj Kumar @ Raju appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Minimum Number of Accused for Dacoity

    • Section 391 IPC: Defines dacoity as a robbery committed by five or more persons acting conjointly.
    • Section 396 IPC: Prescribes punishment for dacoity with murder, requiring the involvement of at least five persons.
    • Supreme Court’s Analysis: The Court emphasized that conviction under Section 396 is not sustainable if fewer than five persons are found guilty, unless there is clear evidence that more than five participated but only some could be identified.

    2. Acquittal of Co-Accused

    • The trial court acquitted two out of six accused without finding that unidentified persons were also involved. Thus, only four were convicted, failing the statutory requirement for dacoity.

    3. Precedents Cited

    • The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Ram Lakhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Saktu & Anr. v. State of U.P., reinforcing that at least five persons must be established as participants for a conviction under dacoity provisions.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    • Acquittal: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 396, IPC, and ordered his immediate release, as the essential ingredient of five or more persons was not met.
    • Legal Principle: The Court clarified that unless the presence of five or more persons is unquestionably established, a conviction for dacoity (and by extension, dacoity with murder) cannot stand.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Strict Adherence to Statutory Requirements: The case underscores the necessity for courts to strictly adhere to the statutory definition of dacoity.
    2. Importance of Evidence: Convictions cannot be based on assumptions or incomplete identification; clear evidence of the number of participants is crucial.
    3. Guidance for Future Trials: The judgment serves as a precedent for lower courts in interpreting group crime provisions under the IPC.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Raj Kumar @ Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal is a landmark in criminal jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that criminal liability must be established beyond reasonable doubt and in strict conformity with statutory requirements. This decision not only acquitted the appellant but also clarified the legal standards for convictions under dacoity-related offences.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Guidelines for Renewal and Re-Issuance of Passports to Indian Citizens Facing Pending Criminal Proceedings: Legal Principles and Directions from the Bombay High Court

    Guidelines for Renewal and Re-Issuance of Passports to Indian Citizens Facing Pending Criminal Proceedings: Legal Principles and Directions from the Bombay High Court

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 26.08.2026

    Guidelines for Renewal and Re-Issuance of Passports to Indian Citizens Facing Pending Criminal Proceedings: Legal Principles and Directions from the Bombay High Court

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    Passport renewal for Indian citizens involved in criminal proceedings has long been a complex issue, often leading to confusion, delays, and hardship. A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court provides much-needed clarity, balancing the right to personal liberty with the interests of justice. This article explores the key legal principles, statutory framework, and practical guidelines established by the Court for passport renewal in such cases.

    Constitutional and Legal Framework

    • Fundamental Right to Travel: The right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this right cannot be arbitrarily curtailed.
    • Passports Act, 1967: This Act governs the issuance, renewal, and revocation of passports. Key sections include:
      • Section 5: Outlines the procedure for applying for a passport.
      • Section 6(2)(f): Allows refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant.
      • Section 10: Details the grounds and process for impounding or revoking a passport.
      • Section 22: Empowers the government to issue exemptions in public interest.
    • Relevant Notifications and Office Memoranda:
      • GSR 570(E) Notification (25 August 1993): Exempts applicants with pending criminal cases from the bar under Section 6(2)(f) if they produce a court order permitting travel.
      • Office Memorandum (10 October 2019): Provides detailed instructions for processing passport applications where criminal proceedings are pending.

    Key Judicial Observations

    Supreme Court and High Court Rulings

    • Not an Absolute Bar: The existence of pending criminal proceedings does not automatically disqualify a person from renewing their passport. The courts have clarified that Section 6(2)(f) is not an absolute bar, especially when the applicant is not seeking to travel abroad immediately.
    • Role of the Criminal Court: The criminal court’s primary concern is to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. Permission to travel abroad is distinct from the right to hold a valid passport.
    • Duration of Renewal: Unless otherwise directed by the court, passports should be renewed for the standard period (usually 10 years) as per Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.
    • NOC/Permission: A No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the court is generally required only when the applicant seeks to travel abroad, not for mere renewal.

    Practical Guidelines from the Bombay High Court Judgment

    The Court issued several actionable suggestions to streamline the process:

    1. Standard Renewal: Passport authorities should renew passports in accordance with Rule 12, unless a court order specifies otherwise.
    2. Undertaking and Affidavit: Applicants must file an undertaking and affidavit, verified by the concerned criminal court, detailing all pending cases.
    3. NOC Details: The NOC should include:
      • Case details and status
      • Stage of trial
      • Number of witnesses
      • Compliance with court orders
      • Attendance record of the accused
    4. Serious Offences: For serious or economic offences, the court may scrutinize the application more closely and issue the NOC on its judicial side.
    5. Fresh Passport Applications: For first-time applicants, the passport authority should not insist on a court NOC and must follow the standard procedure under the Act.
    6. Exhausted Passports: If the passport booklet is exhausted, renewal should be processed without requiring a court NOC, subject to court orders regarding travel.
    7. Travel Abroad: Even after renewal, the applicant must seek court permission before traveling abroad if restrictions are imposed.

    Distinction Between Passport Renewal and Travel Permission

    The judgment emphasizes that holding a valid passport and traveling abroad are separate issues:

    • Renewal: The right to renew a passport is not automatically curtailed by pending criminal proceedings.
    • Travel: Permission to leave the country is at the discretion of the criminal court, which may impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during trial.

    Recommendations for Passport Authorities

    • Avoid Unnecessary Objections: Passport authorities should not raise objections to renewal solely on the ground of pending criminal cases if the applicant complies with the Act and Rules.
    • Fair and Transparent Process: As a state authority, the passport office must act fairly and transparently, minimizing inconvenience to citizens.
    • Review of Notifications: The authorities are encouraged to reconsider existing notifications to further streamline the process and avoid unnecessary litigation.

    Conclusion

    The Bombay High Court’s judgment provides a balanced and practical approach to passport renewal for individuals facing criminal proceedings. By clarifying the roles of the passport authority and the criminal court, and by emphasizing procedural fairness, the Court has ensured that fundamental rights are protected while upholding the interests of justice. Applicants and legal practitioners should closely follow these guidelines to navigate the process efficiently.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 25.08.2026

    Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has brought to light critical legal and procedural issues in criminal cases involving charges of dacoity and related offenses. The case, involving appellants Tulsi, Shyam Kumar, and Maharam Singh, centered on allegations of preparation to commit dacoity under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as possession of illegal arms under the Arms Act. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the court’s reasoning, and its broader implications for criminal jurisprudence in India.

    Background of the Case

    On August 26, 1999, the police received secret information about a planned dacoity at Roshnara Park, Delhi. Acting on this tip, a police team set up a raid and apprehended four individualsβ€”Maharam Singh, Shyam Kumar, Tulsi, and Shyam Kishoreβ€”while a fifth alleged conspirator, Raju, reportedly escaped. Weapons were recovered from the accused, and charges were framed under Sections 399/402 IPC (preparation and assembly for dacoity) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

    Key Legal Issues Raised

    1. Requirement of Minimum Five Persons for Dacoity Charges

    The defense argued that the essential ingredient for invoking Sections 399 and 402 IPCβ€”assembly of at least five personsβ€”was missing. The prosecution’s case relied on the presence of a fifth person, Raju, who was never apprehended or identified beyond the police narrative. The defense cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that less than five persons cannot be convicted for dacoity-related offenses.

    2. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence

    The court scrutinized the testimonies of key police witnesses and found inconsistencies, particularly regarding the presence and actions of the alleged fifth conspirator. The absence of independent public witnesses during the raid and recovery of weapons further weakened the prosecution’s case.

    3. Recovery of Weapons

    The defense challenged the legitimacy of the weapon recovery, suggesting the possibility of evidence being planted. The court noted the lack of independent corroboration and the questionable credibility of the official witnesses.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    • Legal Requirement Not Met: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of five or more persons, a mandatory requirement for dacoity charges under Sections 399/402 IPC, as derived from Section 391 IPC.
    • Witness Testimony Unreliable: Contradictions in police testimonies, especially regarding the role of Constable Arjun Singh and the elusive Raju, undermined the prosecution’s narrative.
    • No Independent Witnesses: The inability to secure any public witnesses in a busy public park was deemed implausible, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s version.
    • Recovery of Weapons in Doubt: The court found the recovery process lacked transparency and independent verification, making the evidence unreliable.

    Judgment and Outcome

    The Delhi High Court acquitted all appellants of the charges under Sections 399/402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court ordered the destruction of the recovered weapons and discharged the bail bonds of the accused.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Strict Adherence to Legal Requirements: The judgment reinforces the necessity of meeting all statutory ingredients, especially the minimum number of accused in dacoity cases.
    2. Importance of Credible Evidence: It highlights the need for reliable, corroborated evidence and the risks of relying solely on official witnesses without independent support.
    3. Procedural Fairness: The case underscores the importance of procedural integrity in criminal investigations and trials.

    Conclusion

    This judgment serves as a significant precedent in cases involving dacoity and related offenses, emphasizing the importance of strict legal compliance and credible evidence. It also acts as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of transparent and fair investigative practices.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com