Author: Inder Jain

Introduction In the realm of civil litigation, the question of jurisdiction stands as a cornerstone, embodying the very authority of a court to adjudicate a dispute. As enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly under Order XIV Rule 2, the determination of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue is not merely procedural etiquette but a substantive safeguard against futile litigation. This provision mandates that courts prioritize issues that could potentially dispose of the suit at an early stage, thereby conserving judicial resources, mitigating delays, and upholding the principles of natural justice. The rationale is unequivocal: if a court…

Introduction It is common knowledge that litigants deliberately supress the material facts and do not approach the Court with clean hands. This is generally done at the admission stage or for obtaining interim injunction ex parte. The Courts have consistently deprecated this practice and imposed exemplary costs/ penalty on such erring litigants. Clean Hands Doctrine in Indian Jurisprudence In Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that litigants must approach the court with “clean hands,” meaning full and honest disclosure of all material facts relevant to the case. It would be trite that Suppression of material facts…

Introduction: Allahabad High Court Restrains Commercial Use of Educational Institutions It is common knowledge that educational institutions often carry out commercial activities such as weddings, melas, and exhibitions to augment revenue. A question arises whether such activities are legally permissible. The sanctity of educational institutions’ properties as reserved solely for academic and allied activities has been reaffirmed recently by the Allahabad High Court in the public interest litigation filed by Girja Shankar (PIL No. 542 of 2025). The Court’s intervention in restraining commercial exploitation of property belonging to Brahmanand Degree College at Rath, District Hamirpur, imparts significant guidance on ensuring…

Supreme Court Clarifies Works Contract Taxation in Aristo Printers Case Introduction In a pivotal decision that resolves long-standing ambiguities in the taxation of works contracts, the Supreme Court of India, in M/s. Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P. (2025 INSC 1188), dated October 7, 2025, upheld the levy of trade tax on the value of ink, chemicals, and other processing materials used in printing lottery tickets. Delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice Pardiwala penning the judgment, this ruling clarifies the scope of “transfer of property in goods” under…

Supreme Court of India Judgment on Input Tax Credit Rights The Supreme Court of India, in Commissioner, Trade & Tax, Delhi v. M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2042–2047 of 2015, decided on 9 October 2025), has delivered a landmark judgment safeguarding the rights of bona fide dealers under tax law. The Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to genuine purchasing dealers merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the Government. Background Of The Case The dispute arose under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, where the Department invoked…

Pendency of Appeal Does Not Automatically Stay Execution of a Decree The courts have unequivocally declared that mere pendency of an appeal does not operate as a stay on the execution of a trial court’s decree. Unless specifically ordered by the appellate court, a decree’s enforceability continues intact, allowing decree-holders their statutory right of execution despite ongoing appeals. This article explores this pivotal principle, drawing on landmark Supreme Court decisions, quoting judicial excerpts, and analyzing the rationale behind the law. Statutory Framework: Order 41 Rule 5 CPC Order 41 Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the…

Soumya Bhattacharya v/s Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors. — Readability Version Introduction In a significant ruling emphasizing the consumer-friendly ethos of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that any legal heir or representative of a deceased consumer can institute and maintain a consumer complaint on behalf of the deceased. This decision, delivered in the case of Soumya Bhattacharya v. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors. in CM(M) 757/2022 & CM APPL. 33618/2022 decided recently on 18.09.2025, underscores the liberal interpretation of the Act’s provisions to ensure access to justice, particularly in cases involving medical negligence or…

Introduction The legal principle that no appeal lies against the rejection of a review petition stands as a cornerstone of Indian civil procedure, designed to uphold the sanctity of judicial finality and deter endless litigation. Rooted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), this doctrine prevents the abuse of court processes by ensuring that once a matter is decided, it cannot be indefinitely challenged through repetitive mechanisms. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly reinforced this rule, emphasizing its role in maintaining judicial efficiency, preventing harassment of litigants, and promoting the public interest in concluding disputes. This principle not…

SARFAESI Act — Section 14 Possession after Sale (Vijay Prakash Bohra) Introduction The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was enacted to empower banks and financial institutions to recover non-performing assets (NPAs) without court intervention. A key provision, Section 14, allows secured creditors to seek assistance from the District Magistrate (DM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to take physical possession of secured assets. This mechanism is crucial for enforcing security interests, particularly immovable properties. A significant legal question arises: can a secured creditor invoke Section 14 for physical possession even after…

Agricultural Land Exemption — Section 31(i) SARFAESI Act From the plain reading of Section 31(i) of SARFAESI Act, it transpires that Section 31 begins with a non-obstante clause exempting certain classes of properties from the coercive powers of the SARFAESI Act. Section 31(i) explicitly excludes “any security interest created in agricultural land”. The object is twofold: To protect agriculturists from losing their primary means of livelihood through summary enforcement of security interests. To discourage creditors from accepting agricultural land as a mortgage since recovery cannot be made under SARFAESI without judicial intervention. This provision is remedial in nature, highlighting that…