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.
Enforcing Arbitral Awards: Section 36 – Advocate Manish Jha
How a domestic arbitral award is enforced as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — the end of the automatic stay, the conditions on which courts stay money awards, and the mechanics of execution under Order XXI CPC.
Read → 19 August 2026 · Criminal LawLife Term Means Concurrent Sentences – Advocate Manish Jha
In Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. The State (2026 INSC 880) the Supreme Court held that fixed-term sentences must run concurrently with life imprisonment, and that an appellate court cannot enhance a sentence in an appeal filed only by the convict.
Read → 19 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateNo Premium, No Risk: S.64VB Explained – Advocate Manish Jha
Setting aside an NCDRC award of over ₹22 crore in New India Assurance v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities (2026 INSC 876), the Supreme Court held an insurer bears no risk beyond the sum insured unless the additional premium is paid in advance — and neither an official's email nor estoppel can override Section 64VB.
Read → 19 August 2026 · Matrimonial & FamilyInterim Maintenance: Not Income Alone – Advocate Manish Jha
In Ashutosh Rai Asthana v. Yamita Rai Asthana (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024, decided 11 August 2026), the Delhi High Court reduced interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000, holding the quantum cannot rest solely on the husband's income while ignoring the wife's qualifications, income and assets.
Read → 19 August 2026 · Procedure & PracticeFiling a Consumer Complaint in Delhi – Advocate Manish Jha
A practical guide to consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: choosing the right commission, e-Daakhil filing, limitation, evidence, mediation, appeals and execution in Delhi.
Read → 18 August 2026 · Criminal LawReprimand Is Not Abetment: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
Discharging a senior forest officer accused under Section 306 IPC, the Supreme Court held that administrative supervision and reprimands are not abetment of suicide absent a proximate instigating act and intent.
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 → 18 August 2026 · Criminal LawFake Sureties in NDPS Bail: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
Cancelling bail obtained on a fictitious surety in a commercial-quantity heroin case, the Supreme Court issued Article 142 directions on passport deposit, FRRO registration and pre-release verification of sureties.
Read → 18 August 2026 · Criminal LawConduct Alone Cannot Convict: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala v. State of Gujarat (2026 INSC 859) the Supreme Court acquitted two men convicted of murder, holding post-incident conduct cannot prove homicide where evidence points to accidental drowning.
Read → 17 August 2026 · Criminal LawPOCSO Conviction of a Teacher Upheld – Advocate Manish Jha
In Netram Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 573/2026, decided 12 August 2026), the Delhi High Court upheld a drawing teacher's conviction under Section 10 POCSO — a worked example of child testimony, the Section 29 presumption, and a school's duty to report.
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 → 17 August 2026 · Commercial & CorporateObstructing a Trial Has a Price: SC – Advocate Manish Jha
In Reliance Industries Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. (2026 INSC 862), the Supreme Court held that final evidentiary rulings cannot be reopened through oral testimony, upheld redaction of witness affidavits, and imposed ₹10 lakh costs for two decades of obstruction.
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.