Synopsis required for every 138 case filing, Landmark Judgment
Shivaji Rathore 12 -Dec-2025
In a landmark ruling aimed at speeding up cheque bounce litigation, the Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive set of directions governing the procedure, trial, settlement, and compounding of Section 138 NI Act cases. These directions significantly modify earlier judicial positions (including overruling Nalinakshan vs. M. Rameshan, 2009 All MR (Cri) Journal 273) and introduce new procedural reforms applicable across India. These guidelines will now bind all Magistrates and District Courts handling cheque dishonour matters.
1. Mandatory Affidavit of Service – False Affidavit Actionable
The Court held that every complainant must file an affidavit of service. If the affidavit is false, the Trial Court is empowered to initiate appropriate legal action against the complainant.
In all cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, service of summons shall not be confined through prescribed usual modes but shall also be issued dasti i.e. summons shall be served upon the accused by the complainant in addition. This direction is necessary as a large number of
Section 138 cases under the NI Act are filed in the metropolitan cities by financial institutions, by virtue of Section 142(2) of the NI Act, against
accused who may not be necessarily residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the complaint has been filed. The Trial Courts shall further resort to service of summons by electronic means in terms of the applicable Notifications/Rules, if any, framed under sub- Sections 1 and 2 of Section 64 and under Clause (i) of Section 530 and other provisions of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) like Delhi BNSS (Service of Summons and Warrants) Rules, 2025. For this purpose, the complainant shall, at the time of filing the complaint, provide the requisite particulars including e-mail address,
mobile number and/or WhatsApp number/messaging application details of the accused, duly supported by an affidavit verifying that the said
particulars pertain to the accused/respondent. The complainant shall file an affidavit of service before the Court. In the event such affidavit is found to be false, the Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the complainant in accordance with law.
2. UPI / QR-Based Digital Payment System for Settlement at Summons Stage:- A major reform is the creation of dedicated digital payment gateways in every district: District Judges must operationalise secured QR codes / UPI links. Summons must clearly inform the accused that they may instantly pay the cheque amount through the online link. Upon confirmation of payment, courts may proceed with compounding / closure under Section 147 NI Act or Section 255 CrPC / 278 BNSS. This ensures settlement at the very first stage and reduces pendency drastically.
In order to facilitate expeditious settlement of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of each District
Court shall create and operationalise dedicated online payment facilities through secure QR codes or UPI links. The summons shall expressly
mention that the Respondent/Accused has the option to make payment of the cheque amount at the initial stage itself, directly through the said online link. The complainant shall also be informed of such payment and upon confirmation of receipt, appropriate orders regarding release of such money and compounding/closure of proceedings under Section 147 of the NI Act
and/or Section 255 of Cr.P.C./278 BNSS, 2023 may be passed by the Court in accordance with law. This measure shall promote settlement at the
threshold stage and/or ensure speedy disposal of cases.
3. Mandatory Synopsis in Every 138 Complaint – New Supreme Court Format Every Section 138 complaint must now begin with a Synopsis, placed immediately after the index, containing the following particulars:
SYNOPSIS FORMAT (MANDATORY)
Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
I. Particulars of Parties
(i) Complainant: ______
(ii) Accused: ______
(If company/firm: Registered Address, MD/Partner, signatory, persons vicariously liable)
II. Cheque Details
Cheque No.: ______
Date: ______
Amount: ______
Bank & Branch: ______
Account No.: ______
III. Dishonour Details
Date of Presentation: ______
Date of Return: ______
Branch of Dishonour: ______
Reason for Dishonour: ______
IV. Statutory Notice
Date of Notice: ______
Mode of Service: ______
Date of Dispatch & Tracking No.: ______
Proof of Delivery: ______
Whether served: Yes/No
Reply, if any: ______
V. Cause of Action
Date of accrual: ______
Jurisdiction under Section 142(2): ______
Any other pending 138 complaints between same parties: ______
VI. Relief Sought
Summoning & Trial under Section 138 NI Act
Interim Compensation under Section 143A – Yes/No
VII. Filed Through:
Complainant / Authorized Representative
4. No Need to Issue Summons Before Cognizance Under BNSS
The Supreme Court approved the Karnataka High Court ruling in Ashok v. Fayaz Ahmad (2025): Since the NI Act is a special law, Magistrates need not issue summons under Section 223 BNSS before taking cognizance. Direct cognizance can be taken upon filing of the complaint. This eliminates unnecessary procedural delay.
Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490 has taken the view that since NI Act is a special
enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the accused before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of BNSS) of
complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.
5. Mandatory Questions at First Appearance (Post Cognizance Stage) Trial Courts must put the following questions (per Rajesh Aggarwal vs State, Delhi HC):
1. Do you admit the cheque belongs to your account?
2. Do you admit your signature?
3. Did you issue/deliver the cheque?
4. Do you admit liability?
5. If liability denied, specify defence:
Security cheque
Loan repaid
Cheque altered/misused
Other (specify)
6. Do you want to compound the case at this stage?
Responses must be recorded on the order sheet.
The Court shall record the responses to the questions in the order- sheet in the presence of the accused and his/her counsel and thereafter
determine whether the case is fit to be tried summarily under Chapter XXI of the Cr.P.C. / Chapter XXII of the BNSS, 2023
6. Summary Trial is the Rule – Conversion Requires Cogent Reasons:- Courts must follow summary trial procedure under Section 143 NI Act. A summary trial can be converted to summons trial only with detailed reasons recorded by the Magistrate.
Wherever, the Trial Court deems it appropriate, it shall use its power to order payment of interim deposit as early as possible under Section 143A
of the NI Act.
7. Interim Compensation (Section 143A) – Use as Early as Possible:- Trial Courts should proactively order interim deposit at the earliest stage to deter delay tactics by accused persons.
8. Physical Courts Preferred After Service of Summons:- After the accused is served, cases must be heard in physical courtrooms. Digital listing is allowed only before service. Exemptions from appearance must be given sparingly.
Since physical courtrooms create a conducive environment for direct and informal interactions encouraging early resolution, the High Courts
shall ensure that after service of summons, the matters are placed before the physical Courts. Exemptions from personal appearances should be
granted only when facts so warrant. It is clarified that prior to the service of summons the matters may be listed before the digital Courts.
9. Evening Courts for 138 Cases – Pecuniary Limits to Be Raised The SC held that existing limits (e.g., Rs. 25,000 in Delhi) are too low and must be revised upward to ensure meaningful disposal of cases.
Wherever cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are permitted to be heard and disposed of by evening courts, the High Courts should ensure that pecuniary limit of the cheque amount is realistic. For instance, in Delhi, the jurisdiction of the evening courts to hear and decide cases of
cheque amount is not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, the said limit is too low. The High Courts should forthwith issue practice
directions and set up realistic pecuniary benchmarks for evening Courts.
10. Dashboard Monitoring System in Delhi, Mumbai & Calcutta:- District Judges must maintain a live dashboard showing:
Total pendency
Monthly disposal
Percentage of settlement/compounding
Average adjournments
Stage-wise breakup
Quarterly reports must be submitted to respective High Courts.
Each District and Sessions Judge in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcuttashall maintain a dedicated dashboard reflecting the pendency and progress of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The dashboard shall include, inter alia, details regarding total pendency, monthly disposal rates, percentage of
cases settled/compounded, average number of adjournments per case and the stage-wise breakup of pending matters. The District and Sessions
Judges in aforesaid jurisdictions shall conduct monthly reviews of the functioning of Magistrates handling NI Act matters. A consolidated quarterly report shall be forwarded to the High Court
11. High Court Committees for Monitoring Pendency:- Chief Justices of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta must constitute committees to:
Monitor pendency
Promote mediation
Conduct Lok Adalats
Ensure strict implementation of these directions
Meetings must occur monthly.
12. Compounding Guidelines – Supreme Court Revises Damodar Prabhu Scheme:- The Court has officially modified the 2010 compounding scheme in view of lower interest rates and high pendency.
Revised Compounding Costs (New Law)
Stage Cost
Before recording defence evidence 0%
After defence evidence but before judgment 5%
Before Sessions Court or High Court 7.5%
Before Supreme Court 10%
13. Magistrate Empowered to Suggest Guilty Plea with Benefits:- If complainant/financial institution demands settlement beyond cheque amount, the Magistrate may: Suggest the accused to plead guilty, and Grant benefit under Section 255(2)/(3) CrPC, Section 278 BNSS, or Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
It is pertinent to mention that this Court framed guidelines for co
mpounding offences under the NI Act nearly fifteen years back in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). The relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for
compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to
be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
24. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the abovequoted Guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the
legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from unduly
delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act.
25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the court is spent on the trial of these
cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the
private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent court
can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end.
26. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to the subject-matter where there was a legislative
vacuum.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has now created a robust, technologically enabled, and time-bound mechanism ensuring that: 138 cases are disposed of quickly,
settlements occur at the earliest stage, procedural delays are eliminated, and compounding becomes easier and uniform nationwide.
Case details
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1755 OF 2010
SANJABIJ TARI .…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
KISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR. ..…RESPONDENTS
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme - Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC01-Feb-2026 In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026 In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus - Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 FrameworkShivaji Rathore 29-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public ServantsShivaji Rathore, 28-01-2026 The Supreme Court laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
- Power of Magistrate to Monitor Investigation and Registration of FIRTACIT LEGAL 21-01-2026 One of the most common grievances faced by complainants in criminal law is the non-registration
- Pre-Cognizance Hearing Not Mandatory in Cheque Dishonour Cases: J&K High Court
Section 223 BNSS Inapplicable to Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act Tacit Legal 20 Jan 2025 In a - Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Constitutionality of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption ActTop Court Divided on Whether Prior Government Approval for Corruption Investigations Is Constitutional Tacit Legal 13-Jan-2026 A two-judge
- Marrying Outside District Does Not Give Automatic Local Residence Benefit in Government Jobs: J&K High Court
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Reaffirms Proof-Based Local Residence in Public Recruitment Shivaji Rathore 12 jan - Magistrate Cannot Discharge Accused at Section 251 CrPC Stage in Summons Cases: Delhi High CourtOnce Cognizance Is Taken and Summons Issued, Magistrate Lacks Power to Recall Process, Rules Court Court Shivaji Rathore
- POCSO Trial Truncated Midway: Court Orders Release of Accused After DNA Mismatch and Victim’s Clear Exoneration
Sessions Court Holds Continuation of Trial a Futile Exercise Where Chances of Conviction Are Nil Shivaji Rathore 09-01-2026 - J&k cooperative housing society held to be a “Public Authority” under RTI
Shivaji Rathore 9-1-2026 In a significant ruling reinforcing transparency and accountability, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir - Bombay High court holds using old number plate on unregistered vehicle not cheating or forgery
Shivaji Rathore 08-01-2026 The Bombay High Court has ruled that driving an unregistered vehicle by affixing an old - Intention and knowledge||section 304 IPC | supreme court explain culpable homicide amounting to murder|Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Citing Absence of Intention to Kill Shivaji Rathore 08-01-2025 The
- Supreme Court Reiterates Wide Powers of Magistrate to Ensure Proper Police InvestigationMonitoring of FIR under section 156(3) Shivaji Rathore 07-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment
- Calcutta High Court Reiterates Three Tests for Judgment on Admission Under Order XII Rule 6 CPCAdmission Must Be Clear, Unequivocal and Free From Triable Issues: Court Shivaji Rathore 03-01-2026 The Calcutta High Court
- J&K High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Alleged Loan Fraud Case, Reiterates “Bail Is the Rule”Court cautions against converting pre-trial detention into punishment, relies on Supreme Court precedents on personal liberty Shivaji Rathore
- Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Protecting Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights Against Unauthorized Commercial Exploitation
Court Holds Unauthorized Use of Name, Image, Voice and Likeness for Merchandise and AI Content Violates Personality Rights - Supreme Court: Charges Once Framed Cannot Be Deleted Using Section 216 CrPCSection 216 CrPC Limited to Addition or Alteration of Charges Shivaji Rathore 02-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India,
- Supreme Court Directs Courts, Registrars to Report Cash Transactions Above ₹2 Lakh to Income Tax DepartmentLandmark Directions to Enforce Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act Shivaji Rathore 02-01-2026 In a significant ruling
- Supreme Court Clarifies Overlap Between Copyright and Design Protection Under Section 15(2) of the Copyright ActShivaji Rathore 02-01-2026 In a significant ruling aimed at resolving long-standing ambiguity in intellectual property law, the Supreme
- Supreme Court Bars Service of Section 41A CrPC Notices Through WhatsApp or Electronic ModesShivaji Rathore 01-01-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of procedural safeguards under criminal law, the Supreme Court has categorically
- Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Order Granting Bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar in Unnao Rape CaseShivaji Rathore 31-Dec-2025 In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India on Monday stayed the operation of
- Supreme Court Reiterates Mandatory Compliance of Section 50 CrPC: Arrest Vitiated for Non-Furnishing of Grounds in WritingShivaji Rathore 31-Dec-2025 In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty and procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court of India
- Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force to Address Student Suicides in Higher Educational InstitutionsShivaji Rathore 31 Dec 2025 In a significant and much-needed intervention, the Supreme Court of India, on 24
- J&K high court Quashes FIR and criminal proceedingsCriminal Courts Must Be Proactive, Not Passive: J&K & Ladakh High Court Quashes Fractured ProsecutionHolding that criminal courts
- Why Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Conviction Was Suspended: Delhi High Court’s Legal Reasoning Explained
Shivaji Rathore 24-Dec-2025 The suspension of sentence granted to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar by the Delhi - Notice via Email or WhatsApp: Valid Service under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActCase Title: Rajendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Application u/s 482 CrPC No. 45953 of 2023
- Mutation of Land Records on the Basis of a Will Cannot Be Denied Merely for Being Testamentary: Supreme CourtShivaji Rathore 23-Dec-2025 In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of revenue authorities’ powers, the Supreme Court has
- Service of Summons, Deemed Service & “Left Address”: What the Law Really Says 138 NIAKarnataka High Court Clarifies Scope of Deemed Service in Cheque Bounce Cases Shivaji Rathore 21-12-2025 The Karnataka High
- Sessions Courts Cannot Deny Remission: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Sentencing Powers in Murder CasesShivaji Rathore 20-Dec-2025 In a significant ruling delineating the contours of sentencing jurisdiction under criminal law, the Supreme
- Supreme Court Reiterates: High Courts Cannot Conduct Pre-Trial Enquiry to Quash Cheque Dishonour Cases Under Section 482 CrPCShivaji Rathore 20-Dec-2025 Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Diluted at Threshold Stage In a
- Suppression of Material Facts Bars Relief Under Article 226: J&K and Ladakh High Court Reiterates Doctrine of Clean HandsShivaji Rathore 19-12-2025 Reiterating a fundamental principle governing writ jurisdiction, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Intra-Court Appeal Not Maintainable Against Statutory Patent Appeal Orders: Madras High CourtShivaji Rathore 18 – Dec-2025 The Madras High Court has categorically held that an intra-court appeal under Clause- Litigation Cannot Be Used to Stall Public Projects and Legitimate Rehabilitation: High Court J&KJ&K and Ladakh High Court Dismisses Batamaloo Shop Allotment Challenge; Holds 12-Year Interim Stay Caused ₹3 Crore Loss
- Government Not Entitled to Special Treatment in Delay Condonation: Allahabad High Court Rejects Review Filed After 5,743 DaysShivaji Rathore 18 Dec 2025 While dealing with an extraordinary delay of 5,743 days in filing a Review
- Minority Cannot Substitute Proof of Occurrence in Rape Cases: J&K and Ladakh High CourtShivaji Rathore 14-Dec-2025 Jammu, The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that where the
- Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become a Claim for Higher Post: Supreme CourtShivaji Rathore 13-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court on Friday (December 12) held that a person who has accepted a
- Supreme Court Issues Exhaustive Guidelines to Streamline 138 NI Act Cases: Mandatory Synopsis, Online Payment, No Pre – Cognizance Summons & MoreSynopsis required for every 138 case filing, Landmark Judgment Shivaji Rathore 12 -Dec-2025 In a landmark ruling aimed
- Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates: Revenue Authorities Cannot Proceed When Civil Court is Already Seized of the DisputeShivaji Rathore 12-Dec-2025 In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial discipline between parallel forums, the High Court of Jammu
- SC: Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000 Do Not Make Debt Unenforceable Under Section 138 NI ActSupreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC View Declaring Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 as “Not Legally Enforceable Debt Shivaji
Bombay High Court Reiterates: Compliance With Section 138 NI Act Is Mandatory, Mere Filing of Complaint Not SufficientIntroduction In a recent judgment delivered on 29 July 2025, the Bombay High Court once again emphasized the- Supreme Court: Dying Declaration Not Invalid Merely Because Death Was Not ImminentCourt Holds That Time Gap Between Statement and Death Does Not Affect Its Admissibility Under Section 32 Evidence
- Temple Money Belongs to the Deity, Cannot Be Used to Sustain Cooperative Banks: Supreme CourtSupreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Order Directing Return of Thirunelly Temple Deposits 06-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court on
- Supreme Court: Taking Photos or Videos of a Woman Without Consent Is Not Voyeurism Unless It Captures a “Private Act”Top Court Clarifies Scope of Section 354C IPC on Voyeurism 04-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court has clarified that merely
- Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Convictions; Pulls Up Public Prosecutors For Failing in Their DutyBench Flags Serious Procedural Lapses in Accused’s Section 313 CrPC Examination 03-Dec-2025 In a significant judgment delivered on
- Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Woman’s Right to Recover Cash and Gold Given at MarriageLandmark Ruling Strengthens Financial Rights of Divorced Muslim Women Under the 1986 Act 03-Dec-2025 In a significant judgment,
- Chhattisgarh High Court Allows 21-Week Pregnancy Termination for Minor Rape Survivor, Upholds Bodily Autonomy
Court Reaffirms Right to Bodily Integrity and Personal Liberty Under Article 21 30-Nov-2025 Tacit Legal The Chhattisgarh High - J&K&L High Court Clarifies Law on Test Identification Parade: Dock Identification Is the Substantive EvidenceUnderstanding the Evidentiary Value of TIP and Dock Identification 29-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL The High Court of Jammu &
- Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction for Cheque-Bounce Cases under Section 138 NI Act29-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 138 NI Act complaints must be filed only
- Even half century Delay Cannot Defeat Landowners right to compensation
Karanataka High Court 29- Nov-2025 Tacit Legal Introduction In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional protection of private property, - Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonour Cases: Complaints Must Be Filed Only Before Court of Payee’s Home Branch28-nov-2025 Tacit Legal In a significant judgment delivered on Friday, November 28, the Supreme Court of India has
- JK&L High Court: Employee Cannot Claim Higher Wages Based on Qualifications or Duties Performed26-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL Introduction In a recent judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has
- Supreme Court: Judgment-Debtor Cannot Challenge Auction Sale at a Belated Stage Under Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC26-Nov-2025 Tacit legal In a significant ruling delivered on November 25, the Supreme Court clarified that a judgment-debtor
- Indian Courts Cannot Appoint Arbitrator in Foreign-Seated Arbitration Despite Indian Parties Involved:- SCDate of Judgment: 21 November 2025Case: Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
- Supreme Court Clarifies Difference Between Section 304 Part I and Part II IPC: A Landmark Interpretation23-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL Introduction In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the subtle yet crucial
- Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Must Reflect Clear Application of MindSupreme Court: Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Must Reflect Clear Application of Mind | Delay of 11 Years
- Allahabad High Court: ITAT Cannot Pass Ex-Parte Orders Without Recording Reasons While Rejecting Adjournment Applications20-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice, the Allahabad High Court has
- Supreme Court: Consistent Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Evidence in POCSO Conviction18-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed a crucial principle in criminal jurisprudence
- No Habeas Corpus After Rejection of BailSupreme Court Sets Aside MP High Court Order Releasing Accused Through Habeas Corpus: A Sharp Reminder on Limits
- Departmental Proceedings Need Not Stop Due to Pending Criminal Case: J&K&L High Court16-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed an important principle in
- Guideline in Damodar Prabhu Judgement not Binding:- SCSupreme Court Sets Aside Cost Imposed for Settlement in Cheque Bounce Case: A Detailed Analysis 14-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL
- Supreme court:- Framing of charges in Prevention of Corruption ActSupreme Court on Disproportionate Assets and Framing of Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act Case Title: State
