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.
No Quashing Rape Case on Settlement – Advocate Manish Jha
In Gopal Lodhi v. State of M.P. (2026 INSC 1164), the Supreme Court sets aside the quashing of a rape and SC/ST Act case founded on a compromise, records the victim's statement that she was coerced into settling, restores the trial — and grants the accused anticipatory bail.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Criminal LawDA Conviction: 10% Rule Not Rigid – Advocate Manish Jha
The Supreme Court in V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 1172) upholds a Sub Registrar's disproportionate assets conviction, clarifies that the ten per cent condonable margin is not a hard and fast rule, vacates interim bail and directs surrender in two weeks.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Commercial & CorporateSection 29A: Which Court Extends? – Advocate Manish Jha
In South Bihar Power Distribution v. India Power Corporation (2026 INSC 1165), the Supreme Court holds that participation waives objections to a sole arbitrator, the IBC moratorium does not bar a corporate debtor's own claims, and Section 29A extensions belong to the principal civil court.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Commercial & CorporateRival Trademark Suits, One Court – Advocate Manish Jha
Faced with cross suits over the "SUPREME" mark at Indore and Delhi, the Supreme Court (2026 INSC 1170) transfers both to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad — a neutral single forum — without touching the merits.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Criminal LawAcquitted 22 Years After Robbery – Advocate Manish Jha
In Jiya Lal v. State, the Delhi High Court acquits a man convicted of a 2004 Azadpur Mandi robbery: first-time dock identification without a TIP carried little weight, and co-accused disclosures that discovered nothing were inadmissible.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Civil & PropertyLate Documents in Eviction Cases – Advocate Manish Jha
In Ram Roop Jain v. Kalpana Jain, the Delhi High Court holds that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to supplement a pending leave-to-defend application in a Section 25-B eviction, and that subsequent events matter only if they completely eclipse the landlord's need.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Civil & PropertyPart Performance Defence Revived – Advocate Manish Jha
In Ikramuddin v. Hakimuddin, the Delhi High Court rules that dismissal of a specific performance suit as time-barred does not by itself defeat a tenant's Section 53-A part performance defence, and remands the leave-to-defend application.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Criminal LawThird Bail Plea Fails on DNA – Advocate Manish Jha
In Prem @ Sagar v. State, the Delhi High Court dismisses a third regular bail application and a charge revision in an Azadpur murder case, treating the DNA match on the accused's clothes as a conspicuous circumstance — with liberty to renew bail once the forensic witnesses are examined.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Criminal LawGang Rape Charge Against a Woman – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court holds that Section 70 BNS creates a standalone deeming offence: a woman who acts as part of the group can be charged with gang rape, and a POCSO Section 6 charge against a mother accused of facilitating assaults on her daughter is sustained.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Procedure & PracticeVC Cross-Examination for Elderly – Advocate Manish Jha
After three wasted journeys to Delhi, a 71-year-old witness will be cross-examined by video conferencing: the Delhi High Court explains how the 2021 VC Rules survive for pending cases under the Electronic Evidence and VC Rules, 2025, and prescribes safeguards.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Commercial & CorporateSection 9 Relief, Foreign Seat – Advocate Manish Jha
In Sumridhi Aluminium v. IMR Commodities, the Delhi High Court confirms Section 9 applies to a Singapore-seated SIAC arbitration absent express exclusion — but dismisses the petition because the cargo lies at ICD Palwal, and asset location decides the competent court.
Read → 29 October 2026 · Commercial & CorporateSubstitute Arbitrator: Right Forum – Advocate Manish Jha
In Union of India v. Food King Impex, the Delhi High Court holds that a plea to substitute an arbitrator under Sections 14 and 15 lies before the Section 2(1)(e) court — and with claims of about Rs 24 lakh, that is the district commercial court, not the High Court.
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.