Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Aspiring Advocates

Employees Who Resigned or Retired After 5 Years of Service Entitled to Gratuity

By K Rajasekharan 15 December 2025Uncategorized

An employee who resigns or opts for voluntary retirement is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, provided he has completed at least five years of continuous service, the Supreme Court observed in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2025 INSC 1404].

Section 313 Examination Not a Mere Formality but a Non-Negotiable Duty

By K Rajasekharan 13 December 2025Criminal law

In Chandan Pasi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar [2025 INSC 1371], the Supreme Court stressed that examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 (CrPC) is a non-negotiable duty, , to allow them to explain incriminating evidence against them. It is not a mere formality.

Contempt Jurisdiction is not a Tool to Silence Critics or Shield Judges

By K Rajasekharan 13 December 2025Constitutional law

In Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion [2025 INSC 1408], the Supreme Court reiterated that the power to punish for contempt is not a tool to silence critics or shield judges from scrutiny. It declared that contempt jurisdiction must never become a personal armour for the judiciary.

In Corruption Cases, Police Can Freeze the Bank Account of the Accused under CrPC

By K Rajasekharan 12 December 2025Criminal law

The Supreme Court, in The State Of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey [2025 INSC 1413], held that the police and investigating agencies have the power to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 106 of the BNSS, when a proceeding is initiated against them under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

Well-Reasoned Delay in Filing FIR Not Fatal for Prosecution, But Unexplained Delay Becomes Fatal

By K Rajasekharan 11 December 2025Criminal law

In Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh [2023 INSC 986], the Supreme Court categorically stated that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, it by itself ought not to be regarded by the courts in all cases as fatal to the prosecution.

Cheque Dishonour Case Must be Filed at the Place of the Payee’s Home Branch

By K Rajasekharan 30 November 2025Negotiable Instruments

Complaints relating to dishonour of account payee cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be instituted only before the court that has jurisdiction over the branch of the bank where the payee maintains their account ( the home branch of the payee), observed the Supreme court in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s HEG Ltd [2025 INSC 1362].

Unmarried Hindu Daughter Attained Majority Has Right to Claim Maintenance

By K Rajasekharan 29 November 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce, Maintenance in Family Cases

The Section 20 the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu father to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property, the High Court of Kerala observed in Gireesh Kumar. N v. Rajani K.V. & Anr.

In Virtual Witness Examination, Prior Statements Must Be Electronically Transmitted: SC

By K Rajasekharan 18 November 2025Criminal law2 Comments

In Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs State of NCT of Delhi [2025 INSC 1322], the Supreme Court issued a binding directive that in all proceedings where a witness is examined via video conferencing, the trial court must ensure the electronic transmission of the witness's prior statements to them.

First Wife Must Be Heard Before Muslim Husband’s Second Marriage Can Be Registered

By K Rajasekharan 14 November 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

The first wife must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard when her husband seeks to register a second marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, the Kerala High Court observed in Muhammad Shareef C & Another v. State of Kerala & Another. [2025: KER:82441].

A Tenant Who Possesses Premises Under a Rent Deed Cannot Later Dispute the Landlord’s Title

By K Rajasekharan 13 November 2025Rent Control & Lease

A tenant who came into possession of a rented property through a rent deed executed by a landlord cannot later turn around and challenge the landlord's title, the Supreme Court observed in Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal [2025 INSC 1099].