Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Advocates

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.

An Advocate Can Sign and File an Appeal Suit Without the Client’s Signature

By K Rajasekharan 21 September 2026Code of Civil Procedure 1908 CPCNo Comments

An advocate who conducted a civil suit in the trial court can validly sign and file a memorandum of appeal without obtaining the physical signature of the client, provided that the trial advocate continues to represent the client at the appellate stage under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. However, as a matter of prudence, it is always advisable to obtain the client’s signature to prevent unexpected defects or objections from the court’s registry.

Exhaust Alternate Remedies before DRT and DRAT under SARFAESI Prior to Filing Writ Petition

By K Rajasekharan 19 September 2026UncategorizedNo Comments

The Supreme Court has consistently held that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).