What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

Lex Koterie, Delhi High Court, Delhi (2026)

26/09/2026

🚆 RAILWAY TICKET LOST? COMPENSATION CLAIM REJECT HO SAKTA HAI?

⚖️ SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES!

In Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the mere absence of a railway ticket with an injured/deceased passenger does not automatically defeat a compensation claim.

🔹 The passenger's father stated on oath that his son had purchased a valid railway ticket, but the ticket was lost.

🔹 Railway officials admitted that they had not searched the victim's pockets for the ticket.

🔹 The Court held that the initial burden could be discharged by the claimant through relevant evidence, after which the burden could shift to the Railways.

🔹 The Court also considered the fact that the Railway investigation report was prepared approximately seven months after the incident and, without an explanation for the delay, declined to rely upon it.
💰 Result: The Supreme Court restored the Railway Claims Tribunal's award of ₹8 lakh compensation with 9% interest, directing the Railways to satisfy the award within 30 days.
📌 LEGAL TAKEAWAY

👉 Ticket not found ≠ claim automatically rejected.

👉 Courts can examine the entire evidence and surrounding circumstances.

👉 The claimant's initial burden and the Railways' response/rebuttal are important.

👉 Delay in a railway investigation may also be relevant when assessing the evidence.

📚 Case: Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India
📅 Decision: 25 September 2026
🏛️ Supreme Court of India
📌 Civil Appeal No. 12951 of 2026

⚖️ Follow Lex Koterie for simple explanations of important judgments and legal updates.

23/09/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT: WIDOW CAN BECOME ABSOLUTE OWNER WITHOUT PARTITION!
Supreme Court Judgment | 22 September 2026

Can a Hindu widow become the absolute owner of her deceased husband’s property even without a formal partition?

The Supreme Court has clarified an important principle concerning Hindu women’s property and inheritance rights in Ganapati (Dead) by LRs v. Prabhakar & Others, 2026 INSC 1033.

🔍 Background of the Case

After her husband died in 1949, Kashibai inherited a limited interest in his property under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937. Her stepson claimed exclusive ownership, arguing that she had never formally sought partition.

⚖️ What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

Partition is not mandatory: A widow's statutory interest can become absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even without a prior partition.

Limited interest becomes absolute: The 1956 Act enlarges qualifying pre-existing property rights of Hindu women into full ownership.

Right to transfer property: Once absolute ownership is established, the widow can legally dispose of her interest, including through a Will.

📌 Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, recognising Kashibai's absolute ownership of her inherited interest.

KEY LEGAL TAKEAWAY

A widow need not first obtain partition for her qualifying limited interest to become absolute ownership under Section 14(1).

Case: Ganapati (Dead) by LRs v. Prabhakar & Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 1033
Date: 22 September 2026
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Lex Koterie | Simplifying Law, Empowering Citizens

21/09/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT: ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT CANNOT BE DECIDED WHILE CONSIDERING REJECTION OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC

The Supreme Court, in Sheo Kumar Singh & Ors. v. M/s Sharda Educational Society & Ors., 2026 INSC 1011, has clarified an important principle concerning the scope of Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC.

The Court held that the admissibility or otherwise of a document relied upon by the plaintiff cannot, by itself, be made a ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. The question of admissibility is ordinarily a matter to be considered during the trial, after the parties have had an opportunity to lead evidence.

🔹 Key Principles

• While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court primarily examines the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed along with it.

• The defence raised by the defendant in an application under Order VII Rule 11 is not to be treated as determinative at this stage.

• Whether an unregistered document is admissible, including whether it can be relied upon for a collateral transaction under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, is a matter requiring adjudication at trial.

• Recording a finding that a document is inadmissible before the parties have led evidence was held to be contrary to law.

📌 Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and rejected the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC. It held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by law.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it did not decide the ultimate admissibility of the supplementary lease deed, leaving that issue to be determined by the Trial Court on merits.

⚖️ Legal Takeaway

Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not the stage for conducting a mini-trial on the admissibility or evidentiary value of documents.

Where the issue requires evidence and adjudication, it ordinarily has to be determined during the trial rather than being used to terminate the civil action at the threshold.

Case: Sheo Kumar Singh & Ors. v. M/s Sharda Educational Society & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1011
Civil Appeal No.: 12611 of 2026
Judgment Date: 9 September 2026

19/09/2026

🚨 EPF WAGE CEILING INCREASED FROM ₹15,000 TO ₹25,000! ⚖️💼

A significant change for employees and employers!

The Government has announced an increase in the EPFO statutory wage ceiling from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month, effective 17 September 2026.

🔹 What Has Changed?

➡️ Earlier wage ceiling: ₹15,000/month
➡️ New wage ceiling: ₹25,000/month
➡️ Effective date: 17 September 2026
➡️ Potential impact: Employees earning between ₹15,000 and ₹25,000 may now come within the mandatory EPF coverage framework, subject to applicable EPFO provisions.

💰 What Does It Mean for PF Contribution?

Where contribution is calculated on the statutory ceiling:

12% of ₹25,000 = ₹3,000 per month as the employee's share.

However, the increase in the wage ceiling does not automatically mean that every existing employee's PF contribution will become ₹3,000. The applicable coverage and contribution provisions must be examined based on the employee's circumstances and the establishment's EPFO compliance.

⚖️ Why Is This Important?

This change can have significant implications for:

✅ Employees earning ₹15,000–₹25,000
✅ Employers and HR departments
✅ Payroll professionals
✅ EPFO compliance
✅ PF contribution calculations
✅ Employee benefits and social security

📌 Employers should review their payroll and EPFO compliance processes in light of the new ceiling.

Follow Lex Koterie for simplified updates on Labour Laws, EPF, GST, Corporate Law & Litigation.

19/09/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT: BRIBE HANDED TO INTERMEDIARY ≠ AUTOMATIC CONVICTION

Can a public servant be held criminally liable merely because alleged bribe money was received by an intermediary?

The Supreme Court, in Bharat Raj Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation, examined this important issue under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is fundamental to a corruption prosecution. Mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is not sufficient to establish guilt.

At the same time, the Court clarified that personal receipt of money by the public servant is not mandatory in every case. Acceptance through an intermediary can satisfy the statutory requirement where the necessary connection is established.

However, merely showing that a third person received money does not automatically establish the liability of the public servant. The prosecution must produce reliable evidence demonstrating that the intermediary acted under the accused's authority, direction or for his benefit, and that the demand was attributable to the accused.

The Court also stressed caution in relying upon approver/accomplice evidence, ordinarily requiring independent corroboration connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

🔑 KEY TAKEAWAY

“Recovery from an intermediary is not, by itself, proof of demand and acceptance by the public servant.”

📌 Case: Bharat Raj Meena v. CBI
📌 Criminal Appeal Nos.: 4732 & 4733 of 2024
📌 Issue: Demand & acceptance of bribe through intermediary
📌 Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

16/09/2026

🚨 SUPREME COURT BIG RULING ON MACT JURISDICTION! ⚖️🚗

Can You File a Motor Accident Claim Anywhere the Insurer Has an Office?

Not automatically.

The Supreme Court has clarified the territorial jurisdiction of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

📌 CASE: K. Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
📌 Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2026
📌 2026 INSC 996
📌 Judgment: 16 September 2026

⚖️ WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT HOLD?

Under Section 166(2), a claimant may file a compensation claim before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over:

🔹 The place where the accident occurred;
🔹 The place where the claimant resides;
🔹 The place where the claimant carries on business; or
🔹 The place where the defendant resides.

🚨 But there is an important limitation:

The mere fact that an insurance company has an office or carries on business at a particular place does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the MACT there.

The Supreme Court distinguished between the expression “claimant resides or carries on business” and “defendant resides” used in Section 166(2).

📍 WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

The accident occurred in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh.

The claimant filed the claim before the Tribunal at Chennai, relying, among other things, on the insurer having an office at Chennai.

However, the claimant's pleadings showed residence in Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, and no part of the cause of action was pleaded to have arisen in Chennai.

The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the Chennai Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction and confirmed transfer of the proceedings to the Tribunal at Chittoor.

⚠️ ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT

If an insurer is impleaded as a party-respondent, it can raise permissible objections, including an objection to territorial jurisdiction.

The Court also clarified that the stage at which the jurisdiction objection is raised matters. An objection at the initial stage is considered under Section 166(2), whereas at the appellate/post-award stage, Section 21(1) CPC requirements become relevant.

🔥 KEY TAKEAWAY

“Insurance Company का office होना alone MACT jurisdiction के लिए enough नहीं है.”

Before filing an MACT claim, carefully examine:

✅ Place of accident
✅ Claimant's residence
✅ Claimant's place of business
✅ Residence of the defendant
✅ Pleadings regarding territorial jurisdiction
✅ Stage at which jurisdiction is challenged

⚖️ One wrong assumption about jurisdiction can affect where your claim is heard.

📚 Legal Awareness | Motor Vehicles Act | MACT | Section 166(2)

Follow Lex Koterie for simplified explanations of important judgments and legal developments.

14/09/2026

🚨 SUPREME COURT BIG RULING ON OLD ELECTRICITY DUES! ⚡⚖️

Can an Electricity Department Recover a Bill After Years?

Not automatically.

The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of the two-year limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

In a case involving a ₹57.74 lakh demand raised in 2007 for alleged dues dating back to 1998, the Court dismissed the electricity distribution licensee's appeal.

🔑 KEY POINT:
If an electricity amount became “first due” and was not continuously shown as recoverable as arrears in subsequent bills, the limitation protection under Section 56(2) becomes crucial.

⚠️ A demand cannot simply sleep for years and suddenly appear as a fresh recovery claim.

Supreme Court:

“First due” = linked to the bill issued quantifying the electricity charges.

📌 Case: Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Vidut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
📌 Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2013
📌 2026 INSC 985
📌 Judgment dated: 10 September 2026

👉 Save this post | Share with someone facing an old electricity demand

This post is for legal information and does not constitute legal advice.

11/09/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SECTION 69 BNS

🚨 BROKEN MARRIAGE PROMISE ≠ FALSE PROMISE FROM THE START

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that mere failure to fulfil a promise to marry does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

📌 Case:

Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

SLP (Crl.) No. 11526 of 2026
2026 INSC 987
Decision: 7 September 2026

The Court held that Section 69 requires the promise to marry to have been made without any intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning.

🔍 What happened?

The complainant alleged that the accused entered into a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and later refused to marry because his mother was not agreeable.

The Supreme Court found that the complaint indicated a consensual relationship and did not disclose the required deceitful conduct.

⚖️ Supreme Court's decision

The Court quashed the FIR registered at Sayajiganh Police Station, Vadodara City, Gujarat.

💡 KEY LEGAL TAKEAWAY

The question is not merely whether the marriage promise was ultimately broken.

The crucial question is:

Was the promise to marry false and deceitful from the very beginning?

If the promise was genuinely made but marriage could not subsequently take place because of circumstances arising later, that alone does not establish the offence under Section 69 BNS.

⚖️ Genuine Promise ≠ Deceitful Promise

This post is for legal awareness and does not constitute legal advice.

07/09/2026

🚨 SUPREME COURT BIG RULING ON CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
⚖️ Can a Company Face Criminal Prosecution Even If No Director or Employee Is Arraigned?

YES.

In Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court clarified that non-identification or non-arraignment of a particular natural person does not, by itself, require criminal proceedings against a company to be quashed.

🔑 KEY TAKEAWAYS

🏢 Companies can possess mens rea and can be held criminally liable for offences requiring a guilty mind.

🔍 Identifying a particular director/employee is not always mandatory at the threshold.

⚖️ The Court has laid down a 3-stage attribution framework:

Corporate authority
Delegated authority
Statutory-purpose based attribution

🚨 Section 482 CrPC cannot ordinarily be used to quash proceedings merely because no natural person has been identified or arraigned. The allegations must instead be examined to see whether they disclose an offence.

📌 However, the prosecution must still show, at least prima facie, that:

a natural person acted on behalf of the corporation;
the conduct relates to the alleged offence; and
the surrounding circumstances make the required mens rea possible.
🎯 SUPREME COURT'S DECISION

The Court found that the allegations against Sanofi India Ltd. disclosed sufficient prima facie material to continue the prosecution.

Appeal dismissed.

🔥 ONE-LINE IMPACT

“No Director Arraigned” ≠ “Company Cannot Be Prosecuted”

This judgment is significant for corporates, directors, compliance teams, investigating agencies and criminal-law practitioners.

Save • Share • Follow for important Supreme Court updates.

05/09/2026

💊 MEDICINE APPROVAL IN INDIA — WHAT DOES IT TAKE? 🇮🇳

Planning to manufacture, import or market a medicine in India?
Regulatory approval is not a single-step process. The requirements depend on the type, composition, intended use and regulatory status of the product.

⚖️ KEY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

🔹 CDSCO – Central regulatory authority
🔹 State Licensing Authority / State FDA – Manufacturing & certain licensing functions
🔹 SUGAM Portal – Online regulatory applications

📌 BASIC REGULATORY ROADMAP

1️⃣ Identify the Product Category
New Drug | Generic | FDC | Vaccine | Biological | Biosimilar | Herbal/AYUSH | Imported Drug

2️⃣ Determine Regulatory Status
Is it a “New Drug”?
Is CDSCO approval required?
Is a State Drug Licence also required?

3️⃣ Prepare the Regulatory Dossier

📄 CMC / Quality Data
📄 Manufacturing Process
📄 Stability Data
📄 Pre-clinical Data
📄 Clinical Data, where applicable
📄 Bioavailability/Bioequivalence Data, where applicable
📄 Labelling & Package Insert
📄 Manufacturing Site Details

4️⃣ Clinical Trial Approval — Where Required

For certain new drugs, clinical trial permission and compliance with applicable clinical-trial requirements may be necessary before marketing approval.

5️⃣ Apply to the Appropriate Authority

Depending on the product, applications may need to be submitted through CDSCO/SUGAM and/or the relevant State Licensing Authority.

6️⃣ Regulatory Review

The authorities examine the product's quality, safety and efficacy, along with the submitted technical and clinical information.

7️⃣ Marketing / Manufacturing / Import Permission

Only after obtaining the applicable regulatory permissions can the product legally proceed to the relevant stage of manufacture, import or marketing.

⚠️ IMPORTANT

A product being legally sold in another country does not automatically mean it can be marketed in India.

The approval pathway can also change depending on whether the product is a new drug, generic, FDC, biological, vaccine, Ayurvedic/ASU medicine, or medical device.

📌 Before investing in manufacturing or importing a medicine, conduct a proper regulatory classification and approval assessment.

⚖️ LEGAL & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MATTERS.

Lex Koterie

26/09/2026

23/09/2026

21/09/2026

19/09/2026

19/09/2026

16/09/2026

14/09/2026

11/09/2026

07/09/2026

05/09/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm