Lex Koterie

23/08/2026

🚨 SUPREME COURT BIG RULING ON BRIBERY CASES! ⚖️

❌ Mere Recovery of Bribe Money Is NOT Enough!

The Supreme Court has reiterated a crucial principle under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

👉 Prosecution must first prove the DEMAND for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

In Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that merely recovering alleged bribe money from an accused cannot by itself establish the offence when the foundational fact of demand has not been proved.

🔑 KEY TAKEAWAYS

📌 Demand is the foundation of a bribery prosecution.

📌 Mere recovery/possession of tainted currency does not automatically prove guilt.

📌 Section 20 presumption can arise only after the prosecution establishes the foundational fact of demand.

📌 In this case, the alleged demand was found doubtful, while the alleged bribe amount of ₹20 was recovered from A2, who himself was not proved to have made any demand.

📌 The Supreme Court also found the sanction for prosecution of A1 invalid, as it had been granted by an authority not competent to remove him from service.

⚖️ FINAL VERDICT

The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and acquitted both accused, holding that mere possession of ₹20 was insufficient when the prosecution failed to prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt.

💡 LEGAL PRINCIPLE

“No proven demand = Recovery alone cannot sustain conviction.”

📚 Case: Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek & Anr. v. State of Gujarat
📅 Judgment: 19 August 2026
📌 Citation: 2026 INSC 890
🏛️ Supreme Court of India

Follow Lex Koterie for simplified updates on important Supreme Court & High Court judgments.

21/08/2026

🚨 BIG UPDATE FOR JUDICIAL ASPIRANTS! ⚖️

The Supreme Court has modified the 3-Year Practice Requirement for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

🔹 Till 31 March 2027: All law graduates can apply, notwithstanding the 3-year practice requirement.

🔹 From 1 April 2027: Minimum 1 year actual practice will be required.

🔹 After selection:
📚 1 Year Judicial Academy Training
⚖️ 1 Year Structured Law Clerkship
📝 Performance Evaluation
➡️ Then regular judicial appointment.

📌 Case: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors.
📅 Judgment: 21 August 2026
📖 2026 INSC 904

The Supreme Court has shifted from a rigid 3-year pre-examination practice model toward Practice + Training + Supervised Judicial Experience.

19/08/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court Issues Major Directions on NDPS Bail for Foreign Nationals

The Supreme Court of India, in Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors., 2026 INSC 870, has issued significant directions concerning bail, surety verification and safeguards for foreign nationals accused in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, 1985.

🔴 Key Directions

The Supreme Court has directed that:

🔹 Passport Deposit: The passport of the foreign-national accused must be deposited with the jurisdictional Court, with the Court empowered to restrict travel outside India without prior permission.

🔹 FRRO Registration: The accused must register with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) within one week of release and inform the Court and Investigating Officer.

🔹 Two Sureties: The accused must ordinarily furnish two sureties of like amount. The Court may relax this requirement where securing two sureties is genuinely difficult or impossible, but reasons must be recorded in writing.

🔹 Surety Verification within 3 Days: Sureties must be verified within three days, and the verification report must be placed before the Trial Court before the accused is released.

🔹 Physical Address Re-verification: Even if the accused's address was verified during investigation, it must be physically re-verified after the bail order and before release.

🔹 Financial Disclosure: The accused must disclose the source of income/funds in India and details of Indian bank accounts, if any.

🔹 Embassy Intimation: The Investigating Officer must inform the Embassy of the accused's country of origin about the alleged involvement in the offence.

🔹 Centralised Database: A centralised database is to be created containing particulars of foreign-national accused and their sureties in NDPS cases.

🔹 Fake Sureties: If a purportedly verified surety is subsequently found to be fake, officials involved in the verification process may face departmental inquiry for dereliction of duty.

🔹 Lien on Surety Property: A lien/charge equivalent to the surety bond amount may be created over the surety's property, including immovable property.

🔹 Digital Verification: High Courts have been directed to take steps towards digital portals for speedy verification and authentication of property and financial documents.

🔹 Form 47A: The Court directed insertion of an additional Form 47A after Form 47 of the BNSS, 2023, containing enhanced disclosures relating to the accused and sureties.

⚠️ Important Clarification

The Supreme Court has not held that foreign nationals are automatically disentitled to bail.

The Court recognised that foreign nationals are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, while reasonable and proportionate conditions may be imposed to ensure their availability for the criminal process.

📚 Case: Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara & Ors.

17/08/2026

🚨 DELHI HIGH COURT’S BIG RULING ON MAINTENANCE! ⚖️

₹30,000 Maintenance Reduced to ₹25,000 Per Month

Can a wife’s independent income, qualifications, assets and earning capacity affect the amount of maintenance?

The Delhi High Court has answered: YES — all relevant financial circumstances must be considered.

📌 Case: Ashutosh Rai Asthana v. Yamita Rai Asthana
📌 Delhi High Court
📌 Judgment Date: 11 August 2026
📌 Justice: Saurabh Banerjee

🔍 What Was the Issue?

The Family Court had directed the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife from the date of filing of the maintenance application.

The husband challenged the order, pointing out that:

➡️ He was bearing the expenses of both children, including his daughter’s MBBS education.

➡️ The wife was an MBA (Finance) and was considered capable of earning.

➡️ She was receiving ₹10,450/month rental income.

➡️ She was also receiving around ₹4,400/month interest from FDs.

➡️ She was residing in a three-bedroom house owned by the husband.

➡️ The husband also had financial liabilities and loans.

⚖️ Supreme Court Principles Applied

The High Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which requires courts to consider several factors while determining maintenance, including:

🔹 Status of the parties
🔹 Reasonable needs of the claimant
🔹 Independent income and property
🔹 Number of dependants
🔹 Lifestyle enjoyed during marriage
🔹 Liabilities of the husband
🔹 Education & medical expenses
🔹 Payment capacity
🔹 Litigation expenses

🚨 KEY OBSERVATION

The Court held that maintenance cannot be determined merely by looking at the income of the husband.

The Court must consider the cumulative financial circumstances of both parties and strike a balance between their respective rights and liabilities.

✅ FINAL DECISION

The Delhi High Court reduced the interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month, payable from 12 April 2021, the date of filing of the maintenance application.

💡 LEGAL TAKEAWAY

Husband’s high income does not automatically mean higher maintenance.

The Court must consider:

Income + Independent Income + Assets + Earning Capacity + Liabilities + Children’s Expenses + Overall Circumstances

⚖️ Maintenance is meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution — not to impose an automatic financial burden without considering the complete circumstances.

📢 Follow Lex Koterie for simplified updates on Supreme Court & High Court judgments, GST, Corporate Law, Taxation and Litigation.

14/08/2026

🚨 SUPREME COURT’S BIG GST ARREST RULING! ⚖️

Section 69 GST Arrest Order Must Be Communicated Before Arrest

The Supreme Court has delivered an important ruling on GST arrest powers, personal liberty and anticipatory bail in:

Union of India v. Sunil Biyani
📌 2026 INSC 849
📅 12 August 2026

🔍 What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Court held that an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the CGST Act, authorising arrest, must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested before the arrest is made.

Why?

Because a Section 69 order is a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail once the statutory conditions for arrest are satisfied.

Without knowing that such an order exists, a person may be unable to effectively exercise the legal remedy available to protect his liberty.

⚠️ Important: Summons ≠ Arrest

The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that:

Mere issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does NOT make a person an accused.

A summons by itself does not automatically create a right to anticipatory bail.

🧾 What Must Happen Before Arrest?

Under Section 69:

Commissioner forms “Reasons to Believe”
⬇️
Reasons must be based on material/evidence
⬇️
Application of mind
⬇️
Section 69 arrest order
⬇️
Order must be communicated before arrest
⬇️
Person can pursue available legal remedies

The Supreme Court specifically emphasised that the “reasons to believe” must refer to the underlying material and evidence and demonstrate application of mind.

⚖️ Why Is This Judgment Important?

The ruling strengthens the procedural safeguards surrounding GST arrests.

The Court held that withholding the Section 69 order and the reasons underlying it could have serious consequences for the liberty of the person concerned.

The Court also clarified that communication of the order does not obstruct the GST investigation.

📌 Key Takeaway

GST authorities can investigate.
GST summons can be issued.
But an arrest under Section 69 must comply with statutory safeguards.

👉 A person sought to be arrested must be informed of the Section 69 arrest order before the arrest is effected.

Know your rights. Know the law.

— Lex Koterie | Legal Awareness Simplified

13/08/2026

https://youtu.be/ZurrMkkkNjo?si=BbUMLBnHRAka7uiQ

...

13/08/2026

https://youtu.be/e5AQ7F_jQ2Q?si=EUudYZBGz-_BV0Sj

...

13/08/2026

https://youtu.be/yULxAlHOXPw?si=ZiMbz8rndNgS2YrF

...

13/08/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court Big Ruling on Tenant–Landlord Rights

Can a Tenant Become a Buyer Just by Signing an Agreement to Sell?

🚨 Supreme Court Says: NOT AUTOMATICALLY!

In Nazim Shaikh Hasan v. Nasir Mushtaq Shaikh & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified an important principle relating to tenancy and agreements to sell.

📌 Key Facts:
A tenant was occupying a shop at ₹1,500/month. During the subsistence of tenancy, the landlord entered into an Agreement to Sell with the tenant for ₹1.90 lakh. The tenant paid ₹40,000 as part consideration.

The sale was not completed, and the landlord subsequently sought possession.

The tenant argued that after the Agreement to Sell, the landlord–tenant relationship had ended.

❌ Supreme Court rejected this argument.

🔑 What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

1️⃣ Agreement to Sell ≠ Automatic Termination of Tenancy

Merely executing an Agreement to Sell does not ipso facto terminate an existing tenancy.

2️⃣ Surrender Must Be Established

The tenancy can end only where the agreement or conduct of the parties establishes express or implied surrender under Section 111(e) or 111(f), Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3️⃣ Continued Possession Is Not Automatically Section 53A Protection

If a person was already in possession as a tenant, merely continuing in possession after the Agreement to Sell does not mean that he is now possessing the property as a purchaser in part performance.

4️⃣ Registration Matters

The Agreement to Sell in this case was executed in 2004 but remained unregistered.

The Court held that because of Section 17(1A), Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered agreement executed after the relevant 2001 amendment cannot be relied upon to claim protection under Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act.

5️⃣ Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership

An Agreement to Sell by itself does not create title or interest in immovable property. A legally valid registered conveyance/sale deed is required for transfer of ownership.

⚖️ Final Decision

The Supreme Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

📅 Judgment: 13 August 2026
📚 2026 INSC 853
⚖️ SLP (C) No. 17699/2026
👨‍⚖️ Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Justice N.V. Anjaria.

💡 Legal Takeaway

“Agreement to Sell is not a Sale Deed—and a Tenant does not become a Purchaser merely by signing an Agreement to Sell.”

This judgment is particularly important for landlords, tenants, property purchasers and property litigators. The Supreme Court's four-fold legal principles are set out in paragraph 20 of the judgment.

🔖 Save this post | Share with someone dealing with a property dispute | Follow Lex Koterie for more legal updates.