Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Aspiring Advocates

SC Guidelines for Speedy Trial of Cheque Dishonour Cases

By K Rajasekharan 26 September 2025Negotiable Instruments Act

In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr. [2025 INSC 1158], the Supreme Court has issued a set of directives aimed at the speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.These guidelines represent a concerted judicial effort to tackle the immense backlog of cheque dishonour cases that burden the Indian judiciary.

No Pre-Cognizance Hearing for Accused in Cheque Dishonour Cases under BNSS

By K Rajasekharan 26 September 2025Negotiable Instruments Act

n cheque dishonour cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court has held that an accused person does not have a right to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr. [2025 INSC 1158], the Court clarified that the inquiry conducted by a Magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not require the participation of the prospective accused.

Framing a Counterclaim by a Defendant in an Original Suit (OS)

By K Rajasekharan 24 September 2025Civil Cases & Proceedures

A counterclaim is a powerful procedural tool for a defendant. While it should ideally be filed along with the written statement, the Supreme Court has clarified that courts have the discretion to accept it at a later stage, generally before issues are framed, to ensure all related disputes are adjudicated efficiently.

Demand Notice in Cheque Dishonour Case Must State Exact Cheque Amount to be Valid

By K Rajasekharan 20 September 2025Negotiable Instruments Act

In Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul [2025 INSC 1133], the Supreme Court has reiterated a mandatory requirement for a valid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. For the complaint to be maintainable, the statutory demand notice sent to the drawer of the cheque must demand the exact amount covered by the dishonoured cheque.

When an Amendment to a Suit Takes Effect?

By K Rajasekharan 18 September 2025Civil Cases & Proceedures

The Supreme Court, in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu And Anr [AIR 2002 SC 3369], affirmed the established principle that an amendment to a plaint or written statement is deemed to have been part of the pleading since its inception.

An Unmarried Daughter Can Claim Reasonable Wedding Expenses from Her Father

By K Rajasekharan 17 September 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

In a case Akza Rajan v. Rajan M.S [2023/KER/23485], the High Court of Kerala made a significant ruling about a father's duty to pay for his daughters' wedding expenses. The court ruled that unmarried daughters, aged 21 and 26, have a legal right to receive a reasonable amount for their marriages from their father, not just a moral one. This right, the court declared, applies to all fathers regardless of their religion.

Local Bodies Cannot Collect Property Tax Arrears Beyond Three Years

By K Rajasekharan 16 September 2025Local Government Laws

In The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation [2025:KER:31602], the High Court of Kerala has ruled that the three-year period of limitation prescribed in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, will prevail over the general 12-year period provided under the Limitation Act, 1908.

In Anticipatory Bail, Applicant Must Approach the Sessions Court Before the High Court

By K Rajasekharan 14 September 2025Criminal Laws & Procedures

The Supreme Court recently reinforced this view in Mohammed Rasal C. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., noting the consistent practice across most states. The Court clarified that while High Courts can entertain direct applications in special or extra-ordinary circumstances, these reasons must be recorded in writing. This aligns with the five-judge bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of UP & Anr., which held that it is for the concerned judge to determine if such special circumstances exist.

Four-Step Test for Quashing an FIR: SC

By K Rajasekharan 11 September 2025Criminal Laws & Procedures

In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP, the Supreme Court, noting that this power was not always being used effectively, laid down a clear four-step process for High Courts to consider when hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Joint Trial Mandatory for Police and Complaint Cases on Same Incident

By K Rajasekharan 9 September 2025Criminal Laws & Procedures

In Biju v. PK Ayyappan [2025: KER:43956], the Kerala High Court has affirmed that when a police case and a private complaint case concerning the same incident are before a Magistrate, both cases must be tried together.