Know Your Rights!!

  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...

I’ve got a fascinating Supreme Court case to share – not a recent ruling but digs into family ties, property rights, and Hindu law. It’s called Kehar Singh (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. vs. Nachittar Kaur & Ors., decided on 20.08.2018, and you’ll find it under Civil Appeal No. 3264 of 2011. This is a story of a son challenging his father’s sale of ancestral land in the Court in the year 1964 , only for his heirs to lose out after a 54-year legal battle, all because of a 1973 law retrospective amendment. Factual Background: There’s a family with a big land parcel—164 Kanals and 1 Marla, to be exact—in Village Bhamian Kalan, Tehsil Ludhiana. This isn’t just any land; it’s ancestral property, passed down through generations. The father, Pritam Singh, decides to sell it to two buyers, Tara Singh and Ajit Singh, for ₹19,500/- on April 25, 1960. The deal’s done, the sale deed’s registered, and the buyers take possession. But Pritam’s son, Kehar Singh, isn’t having it. In 1964 , he marched i...

Let’s talk about a situation that’s all too common. Someone has bought a house through an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to possess the property. The buyer moves into the property and takes full possession. Everything looks sorted—until a bank shows up to recover dues from the original owner and suddenly, the new "owner" is facing eviction. Legally speaking, the story is more complex. Supreme Court's View: Possession ≠ Ownership In Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.(2024) , the Supreme Court clears the air on this very issue. In this case, Pushpa Morey (Respondent No. 2) held property possession based on an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney (GPA). However, none of the documents were registered. The Apex Court firmly held that such possession, supported only by unregistered documents, does not translate into ownership in the eyes of the law. Why Registration Matters? Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908,...

Cyber fraud is something most of us have encountered, either as victims or witnesses. But what happens when a bank’s negligence facilitates such fraud? In a recent ruling, the adjudicating authority (AA) under the Information Technology (IT) Act has set a precedent for accountability in the banking sector. On 21 st January 2025, in Complaint Case No. 3 of 2019 , the principal secretary of IT for Maharashtra state and the AA under the IT Act ordered Axis Bank to pay Rs 1.76 crore with 18% interest, Rs 50 lakh as compensation, and Rs 3 lakh in legal costs to Dhule Vikas Sahakari Bank (DVSB) for unauthorized transactions caused by the bank’s negligence. Under the IT Act, the AA, who is the state IT secretary, has the authority to adjudicate cyber fraud cases involving claims for injury or damage up to Rs 5 crore. The AA has powers of a civil court and can hear complaints related to violations under the IT Act. Victims of cyber fraud, whether individuals or entities, can approach the AA f...