Writ Petitions Not Maintainable Against Private Companies in Banking

In S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., the Supreme Court of India clarified that a private financial institution, such as Muthoot Finance, is not automatically considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, even if it is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Consequently, it is generally not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, unless it is performing a public function.

Setting Aside an Abated or Terminated Suit

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a suit abates (terminates) upon the death of a plaintiff or defendant if the cause of action does not survive. Conversely, if the cause of action survives, the legal representatives of the deceased may be substituted to continue the proceedings, as provided under Order XXII, Rules 2 to 4 of the CPC.

Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonour Cases Lies Where the Payee’s Account is Maintained, Not Where the Cheque is Presented

The Supreme Court, in Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat [2025: INSC: 897], has reiterated the principle governing territorial jurisdiction for an offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Jurisdiction lies with the court within whose limits the bank branch is situated where the payee maintains the account through which the cheque was presented for collection.

Wife (IPS Officer) & her Family to publish Public Apology for Filing Frivolous Cases

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shivangi Bansal v Sahib Bansal [2025 INSC 883] directed  the wife ( IPS Officer) and her family to issue a public apology for filing multiple frivolous cases for harassing her former husband and his family. After their separation in 2018, she filed 15 cases and he filed 10 cases before various Courts/ Authorities.

Proof of Entrustment of Ornaments in Petition for Recovery of Gold

A newlywed wife cannot be expected to demand receipts or arrange for independent witnesses when entrusting her jewelry to her husband or in-laws at their request. The High Court of Kerala, in Prasad v. Greeshma [2025: KER:49786], held that consequently, her inability to produce documentary evidence or independent witnesses to prove such entrustment is not fatal to a Petition for the Recovery of Ornaments.