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.
The State Cannot Take a Shortcut: Summary Eviction Fails Where a Bona Fide Title Dispute Exists
In Circar Paper Mills v. District Collector, Nellore (2026 INSC 924), the Supreme Court held that land held under registered instruments since 1920 raises a bona fide title dispute the State must prove in properly constituted proceedings — not by summary eviction.
Read → 28 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyLimitation on the Face of the Plaint
In N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar (2026 INSC 908) the Supreme Court rejected a plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — where the bar of limitation is glaring from the plaint itself, courts should not hesitate.
Read → 27 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyCourt Fee Cannot Kill a Plaint: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In Neelam Sharma v. Amita Passan, 2026 INSC 913, the Supreme Court holds that where liability to pay ad valorem court fee depends on disputed facts such as joint possession, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 — the fee question awaits evidence.
Read → 25 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyExecution Cannot Outrun the Decree – Advocate Manish Jha
In State of H.P. v. Jameet Singh, 2026 INSC 885, the Supreme Court set aside execution orders granting allowances the decree never awarded, restating that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order it enforces.
Read → 25 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyWhen Does an LPA Lie in Delhi HC – Advocate Manish Jha
Letters Patent Appeals in the Delhi High Court: the Article 226/227 distinction, no second intra-court appeal from appellate judgments, and the statutory bars in the Commercial Courts, Family Courts and Arbitration Acts.
Read → 23 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyElectrocution Claims: Strict Liability – Advocate Manish Jha
In KPTCL v. Rekha, 2026 INSC 847, the Supreme Court holds electricity utilities strictly but not absolutely liable for electrocution, rejects the motor-accident multiplier, and sends disputed claims out of writ jurisdiction.
Read → 22 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyMutation Entries Do Not Decide Ownership: The Supreme Court in Jamnabai v. Vasudev
The Supreme Court restored concurrent findings of two courts, holding that revenue entries serve fiscal purposes only, that limitation runs from knowledge of the hostile claim, and that Section 100 CPC does not permit re-appreciation of facts.
Read → 20 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyConsortium for Adult Children: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In Sameem Begum v. K. Venkat Swamy, 2026 INSC 864, the Supreme Court enhances a motor accident award, holding the widow and each adult child separately entitled to spousal and parental consortium.
Read → 18 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyProving a Will: S.68 & 69 Explained – Advocate Manish Jha
In Pazhanathal v. Alamathal (2026 INSC 860) the Supreme Court held Section 69 of the Evidence Act opens only when proof through an attesting witness is impossible — registration of a will is no shortcut.
Read → 17 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyAccident Claims Without Dependency: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In Sameem Begum v. K. Venkat Swamy (2026 INSC 864), the Supreme Court held that legal representatives may claim motor accident compensation without proving dependency, and awarded consortium of ₹48,400 to the widow and each of three children.
Read → 16 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyAgreement to Sell Does Not End a Tenancy – Advocate Manish Jha
In Nazim Shaikh Hasan v. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh (2026 INSC 853), the Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not by itself determine the tenancy, and unregistered agreements offer no part-performance shield.
Read → 14 August 2026 · Civil & PropertyTransfer of a Suit for Bias: DHC – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 24 CPC petition to transfer a commercial suit, holding that oral observations during hearings, without any adverse adjudication, cannot establish bias — and imposed Rs 25,000 costs.
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.