Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Advocates

Cheque Dishonour Notice Sent to Correct Address Is Validly Served Even When Received by Family Member: Supreme Court

By K Rajasekharan 4 October 2026Negotiable Instruments ActNo Comments

In Sainaba v. State of Kerala & Anr [2026 INSC 1069], the Supreme Court has held that a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sent by registered post to the drawer’s correct residential address constitutes valid service even when the article is received and acknowledged by a family member. Personal receipt or signature of the drawer is not indispensable where the statutory presumption of service remains unrebutted.

Legal Heirship Certificate Can Certify Legal Heirs in Non-disputed Cases

By K Rajasekharan 30 September 2026Property & SuccessionNo Comments

In Baby Kurian v. The District Collector, Kottayam [2026:KER:68475], the Kerala High Court observed that a legal heirship certificate only identifies the legal heirs, and that the prescription in paragraph 236 of the Village Manual, referring to a limit of Rupees Five Lakhs, has no legal basis and no rationale.

Accused Must Prove Signature Forgery if Disputed in Cheque Case

By K Rajasekharan 27 September 2026Negotiable Instruments ActNo Comments

If an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act alleges that the signature on the cheque is forged, the burden lies on the accused to prove the forgery of signature.

Legislative Privileges Do Not Protect Legislators from Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court

By K Rajasekharan 27 September 2026Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC), Constitutional lawNo Comments

In a landmark judgement in State of Kerala v K Ajith, the Supreme Court (SC) allowed to continue the criminal proceedings against some former MLAs in Kerala and declared categorically that the privileges and immunities of the MLA does not protect them from criminal offences in which they engage in. This writeup highlights the essential points in the judgement in an easy-to-learn language.

Signing Alone is Not Execution of a Cheque Under Section 138 of NI Act: The Critical Difference

By K Rajasekharan 26 September 2026Negotiable Instruments ActNo Comments

A common misconception among litigants—and sometimes even practitioners— in cases coming under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act is that once a signature on a cheque is admitted, the execution of the cheque is proved. However, the jurisprudence reveals that mere signing of a cheque does not amount to its execution. Execution is a multi-step legal reality that requires something more than the physical act of signing the cheque.

Pleadings vs. Counter Affidavits Under Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

By K Rajasekharan 26 September 2026Code of Civil Procedure 1908 CPCNo Comments

In civil cases, litigants or lawyers often conflate pleadings with counter affidavits, even though under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), these two documents are legally distinct ones.

Condonation of Delay Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act: Guidelines

By K Rajasekharan 24 September 2026Limitation Act and Condonation of DelayNo Comments

In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, [2013 INSC 620], the Supreme Court laid down consolidated guidelines for condoning delay in filing appeals and other proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,

Ancestral Property Will Become Self-Acquired After Its Division

By K Rajasekharan 24 September 2026Property & SuccessionNo Comments

In Uttam v. Saubhag Singh & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 1169, the Supreme Court held that once joint family property is distributed under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act on principles of intestate succession, it ceases to retain its character as joint family property in the hands of those who inherit it — they hold it thereafter as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants, reading Sections 4, 8, and 19 of the Act together.

Financial Institutions Should Not Repossess Hypothecated Vehicles by Force: Supreme Court

By K Rajasekharan 24 September 2026Code of Civil Procedure 1908 CPCNo Comments

In Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of UP [2026: INSC: 1040], the Supreme Court held that a financier's right to repossess a hypothecated vehicle cannot be exercised through force, deceit, or in violation of the loan agreement's terms. Instead, the recovery of loans and seizure of vehicles must be carried out through proper legal means.