Know Your Rights!!

The Supreme Court, in Snidha Mehra vs Union of India (WRIT PETITION 732/2020 decided on 19.11.2025) , did not strike down section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It refused to rule on the constitutional validity of that clause in this PIL (public interest litigation) and left the question open for a future case brought by directly affected parties. The petition was filed by a young woman lawyer who argued that where a married Hindu woman dies without a will, and leaves behind no husband or children, it is unfair that her property first goes to the “heirs of the husband” before her own parents. She pointed out that this is especially harsh when the woman’s property is self-acquired and her parents, who educated and supported her, are pushed down in the queue. The Court reproduced the existing legal position and kept it intact. In plain terms, when a Hindu woman dies intestate (without a will), her property goes in this order: §   First – to her children (including child...

  The Bombay High Court has struck down the Registrar’s orders against Aether Co‑operative Housing Society (WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.19688 OF 2025, decided on 10.12.2025) , holding that the Co-operative Registrar simply did not have the legal power to decide a dispute about how maintenance was calculated and recovered from members.   What started the dispute? Some flat owner members in the Society went to the Deputy Registrar and complained that the Society had raised maintenance bills in a way that went against its own bye‑laws. On that basis, they asked for a declaration that the Society could not recover those disputed maintenance amounts from them.   What the Registrar did? Acting on this complaint of some members, the Deputy Registrar used Section 154B‑27 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, along with Model Bye‑law 174 and ordered the Society to refund the maintenance collected from May 2022 and issue fresh, revised bills. Being aggrieved by this order,...

Let's talk some family drama—but not the kind you see at weddings!! This one’s about land, family promises, a Will, and a whole lot of back-and-forth between the 3 siblings who just couldn’t agree on who owns what!   Rajammal believed she had a right to half of a plot of land because her father had left a Will in her favour. However, her brother, Munuswamy, was not keen on this claim by his sister. He said he had been enjoying the western portion, and Govindrajan, his brother, had been enjoying the eastern portion of the house built on the land for years, not as a tenant but as a “co-owner,”  and that things had been settled long ago between the two brothers. You’d think a family could sort these things out at some Panchayat or with some elder giving advice, but nope—it went all the way to the Supreme Court! A suit was filed by Rajammal against Munuswamy, her brother, for injunction simpliciter, one, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the suit property and the other ...

If a bank returns a cheque for insufficient funds, the law presumes the cheque was given to pay a real debt once the signature is admitted, and it is up to the issuer to prove otherwise with real evidence, not guesses. In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court restored a conviction that a High Court had wrongly overturned and introduced new, practical steps to expedite cheque-bounce cases nationwide, with effect from 01.11.2025. Let's examine the case of the appellant-complainant, Sanjabij Tari, who advanced a friendly loan of ₹6,00,000 to the respondent, Kishore S. Borcar, supported by credible testimony that to oblige his friend/Respondent, the appellant-complainant had arranged money from his father, who was a cloth merchant having two shops and even went to the extent of parting with a portion of the loan amount which he himself had borrowed from a financial institution. The respondent issued a cheque which was dishonoured by the bank. The trial and sessions courts convicted t...

Most of us, even bankers for that matter, overlook that the law allows endorsing cheques for part-payments. A cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( “The Act” ) fails if the full cheque amount is not actually due because part of the loan has already been repaid and that part-payment is not endorsed on the cheque. The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date it is presented. Let’s take a look at a simple interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2022 (SC) . The Facts: A lender claimed a relative had borrowed Rs. 20 lakhs and gave a cheque for that amount, which later bounced for insufficient funds. The borrower showed that he had already paid Rs. 4,09,315 towards that loan before the cheque was presented. The trial court and the High Court found these part-payments proved, and the Supreme Court examined whether Section 138 applied in such...

The Supreme Court has ruled that  secretly recorded phone conversations between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes. The judgment in  Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025 INSC 829) , delivered on  July 14, 2025 , has finally settled years of confusion among Indian courts. Vibhor Garg and Neha married in 2009 but their relationship fell apart. When Vibhor filed for divorce in 2017, he had secret phone recordings of conversations with his wife from 2010 and 2016. When he tried to use these as evidence, Neha objected, saying it violated her  right to privacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court agreed with her and blocked the recordings. The Supreme Court, led by  Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma , disagreed completely. They ruled that privacy is  not absolute  and must be balanced against the right to a fair trial. The judgment shows how confused courts were before this decision: Courts That Allowed Re...

  The Bombay High Court’s recent decision in Ritesh Haldar v. Elite Housing LLP and Ors, Commercial Arbitration Appeals (L) No.14486/2025 and No.15542/2025, delivered on 24 June 2025 , sheds light on how property and family disputes are handled during building redevelopments—a common event in Mumbai’s old housing societies. In this case, a flat in Khar, Mumbai, became the focus of a dispute between family members when their building was taken up for redevelopment. Ritesh Haldar, the appellant, is one of three brothers in the Haldar family. When the flat was purchased, Ritesh's mother's name (Sabita Haldar) was also included for society membership purposes. After Sabita passed away in 2002, Ritesh claimed to have become the sole owner of the flat, as his name remained on the society records. However, his brothers—Rohitesh (whose wife is Leena) and Rajesh—claimed that their mother owned a 50% share in the flat, which they say passed to all siblings after her death. In the meantim...

A significant decree in  Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(D) By Lrs.,   C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015 , decided on 21 st July 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the evidentiary value and legal presumption attached to a registered will. The matter arose from a property dispute within the Metpalli family and highlights the importance of executing and registering a will to ensure the testator’s {i.e. person making a will is called testator(ix)} intentions are legally honoured and protected against future challenges. In the present case, the testator, Metpalli Rajanna, who passed away in 1983, had contracted second marriage after his first wife passed away leaving behind two children. His second wife – Lasum Bai who did not bear any child. In light of internal familial tensions—particularly between his second wife, Lasum Bai, and his son Muthaiah—he executed a registered will dated 24 th  July 1974....

  In the case of R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another (2025 INSC 490) , the Supreme Court addressed a critical issue in property litigation: the use of large cash transactions. The appeal centered on rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code , as the Gunashekar’s lawsuit, based on an agreement to sell, lacked a valid cause of action. However, the Court’s attention was drawn to his claim of paying Rs.75 lakh in cash, a transaction that not only raised suspicion but also violated Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1963 . Section 269ST , effective from April 1, 2017, prohibits cash transactions above Rs.2 lakh to curb black money and promote a digital economy. The Court observed that such a large cash payment, as alleged in the suit, clearly contravened this law. It noted that despite the amendment’s introduction, the desired shift toward transparent financial dealings had not been fully realized, as evidenced by this litig...