What are the opening hours?

Monday 10am - 5pm Tuesday 10am - 5pm Wednesday 10am - 5pm Thursday 10am - 5pm Friday 10am - 5pm Saturday 10am - 5pm

Adv Adarsh Varma

Home
India
New Delhi
Adv Adarsh Varma

Advocate practising before the Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court. Based in Noida & Delhi. For consultations

Anjaneya Law Office offers trusted legal counsel in Criminal Law, Civil & Property, Family & Matrimonial, Corporate Law, and Arbitration.

29/08/2026

⚖️ Delhi HC steps in to break the deadlock!
In a family business dispute over partnership firm Aero Enterprises, the Delhi High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator after mediation failed and the parties couldn't agree on one themselves.
🔑 Big point of law: there's no fixed "30-day" clock under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act — courts look at the full picture (failed mediation, negotiations, conduct) to decide if a "reasonable time" has passed.
📍 Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhatt appointed as Sole Arbitrator, DIAC rules to apply.

23/08/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS THE SANCTITY OF CHEQUE-BOUNCE PRESUMPTIONS

Case: Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, 2026 INSC 790
Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna & Ujjal Bhuyan

A hand loan. A dishonoured cheque. And a legal tug-of-war that travelled from a Magistrate's court all the way to the Supreme Court.

📌 The backstory:
A complainant lent ₹4.5 lakh to a friend for a house-site purchase. The cheque issued in repayment bounced for insufficient funds. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Sessions Court, on appeal, agreed — only trimming the fine. But the Karnataka High Court, exercising revisional powers, acquitted the accused, reasoning that the complainant hadn't convincingly shown he had the means to lend that much money.

The Supreme Court didn't buy it — and here's why this ruling matters:

1️⃣ Presumption is powerful, not optional
Once a cheque's signature is admitted, Sections 118 & 139 of the NI Act presume it was issued for a real debt. The burden shifts to the accused to disprove this with credible evidence — not vague theories or notices sent as an afterthought.

2️⃣ Timing exposes intent
The accused claimed the cheque was a misused "blank security cheque." But his legal notice raising this defence was sent over a year after the complaint was filed — well after the complainant's evidence was already recorded. The Court called this exactly what it looked like: an ex-post-facto, engineered defence.

3️⃣ Revisional jurisdiction has limits
Perhaps the sharpest takeaway: a High Court sitting in revision is not a second appellate court. It cannot re-weigh evidence and substitute its own view for concurrent findings of two lower courts unless there's real perversity or illegality on record. Merely finding "another view possible" isn't enough.

🔑 Bottom line: The Supreme Court restored the conviction and the fine, sending a clear signal — cheque-bounce presumptions exist to protect the credibility of commercial transactions, and courts exercising limited supervisory powers must respect that boundary.

A useful read for anyone in banking, commercial litigation, or contract enforcement.

21/08/2026

⚖️ BREAKING: SC softens the "3-year practice" rule for judges
The Supreme Court (21 Aug 2026) tweaked its own 2025 order that forced law grads to practice 3 yrs before even attempting the Civil Judge exam.
New model 👇
✅ Fresh grads can apply NOW (transition till Mar 2027) — deemed 1 yr "practice"
✅ Selected? You become a Trainee Judicial Officer
✅ 1 yr training @ Judicial Academy = counted as practice
✅ 1 yr Law Clerkship (6 mo District Judge + 6 mo HC Judge) = final year done
✅ From April 2027: min. 1 yr real Bar practice required, then same training route
Scheme reviewed after 5 years. One judge (Justice Vinod Chandran) dissented, saying the original 3-year rule shouldn't have been touched at all.
A big win for law students who felt boxed in — but the judiciary still wants courtroom-tested judges. 🧑‍⚖️📚

15/08/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court Ruling: Winning the Case Doesn't Always Mean Winning the Money
Mageba Bridge Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Trade Centre (2026 INSC 839)
A quick but important lesson in commercial litigation:
📌 The dispute: Trade Centre sued Mageba Bridge Products for ₹24.36 lakh in unpaid supply bills. The trial court dismissed it, saying Trade Centre hadn't proved it was a validly registered partnership firm (a bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act).
📌 The turnaround: The First Appellate Court found the registration was in fact proved — Trade Centre held Exhibit-8, an official memorandum from the Registrar of Firms confirming registration since 2010. Suit decreed in Trade Centre's favor.
📌 The Supreme Court's twist: The Court agreed registration was properly proved... but dismissed the recovery claim anyway — on limitation.
The bills were raised individually, not on a running account. A prior "part payment" didn't count as acknowledging the debt (it only settled specific admitted invoices). And time spent pursuing an earlier winding-up petition against the debtor didn't extend the limitation clock for a separate money suit.
The takeaway: Proving your legal standing is only half the battle. Without acting within limitation — and without a running account or clear acknowledgment of debt — even a well-founded claim can fail.
Documentation discipline + timing = everything in commercial recovery.

05/08/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court Says: A Bounced Cheque is a Serious Promise, Not Just Paper
Case: Kuntegowda vs. Thurubaiah | 2026 INSC 790
Here's what happened 👇
💰 A person lent ₹4.5 lakh to a friend as a personal loan
📝 The friend gave a cheque to repay it
❌ The cheque bounced — "insufficient funds"
✅ Trial Court found him guilty
✅ Sessions Court agreed
❌ High Court let him off — saying the lender couldn't prove he had that much money to lend
Supreme Court stepped in and said: Not so fast.
🔑 The big takeaway:
Once someone admits it's their signature on the cheque, the LAW assumes it was for a genuine debt. It's now on THEM to prove otherwise — with real evidence, not just excuses.
Also, simply asking "how did the lender afford to lend this much money?" isn't enough to escape liability, if the accused doesn't back it up with proof.
📍 Result: Conviction restored. The accused has to pay up.
Simple lesson for everyone: If you sign a cheque, be ready to honour it. The law protects the person who trusted you.

04/08/2026

Supreme Court Reaffirms the Scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The Supreme Court has reiterated that amendments to pleadings cannot be permitted merely to rectify a party's own negligence after the trial has commenced or after dismissal of the suit.

In Chitra & Anr. v. C. Natarajan (Civil Appeal No. 9774 of 2026), the Court held that where a party had prior knowledge of an error but failed to correct it despite having the opportunity, such carelessness cannot be cured through an amendment at the appellate stage.

25/07/2026

🏛️ Supreme Court Legal Update

The Supreme Court has once again clarified the law relating to eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.

📌 A genuine and honest need of the landlord is sufficient for eviction if proved.

📌 The High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in revision merely because another view is possible.

📌 The Supreme Court restored the eviction order and directed the tenant to hand over possession within two months.

⚖️ Takeaway: Revisional Courts cannot act as appellate courts. Genuine requirements of landlords deserve due recognition while maintaining the balance intended by rent control laws.

19/07/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS: COURTS CANNOT FORCE COMPENSATION IN PLACE OF A DECREED LEGAL RIGHT
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff has obtained a decree for removal of encroachment, the Court cannot compel the affected party to accept monetary compensation instead of enforcing that decree.
The dispute involved illegal encroachment and unauthorized construction over a common passage and the plaintiff's wall. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court had directed removal of the offending structures. However, the High Court substituted the decree with monetary compensation.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's approach and observed:
✅ Courts cannot create a new relief which was never sought by the parties.
✅ A successful litigant cannot be forced to accept compensation in place of a decree for mandatory injunction.
✅ Executing Courts cannot be directed to undertake exercises unsupported by an existing decree.
✅ Justice must be delivered within the framework of pleadings, evidence, and statutory powers.
Key Takeaway:
A decree-holder's substantive property rights cannot be extinguished merely by offering monetary compensation unless such relief is sought or consented to by the affected party.
This judgment reinforces the sanctity of pleadings, decrees, and the limits of appellate jurisdiction.

18/07/2026

⚖️ Consumer Rights > Arbitration Clauses

The Supreme Court has ruled that a consumer complaint cannot be pushed into arbitration merely because the agreement contains an arbitration clause.

🏠 Homebuyers can still seek compensation for delayed possession.
📜 Consumer Protection Act remedies remain independent and additional.
⚖️ Statutory consumer rights cannot be defeated by private contracts.

A strong reaffirmation of consumer-friendly jurisprudence by the Supreme Court.

Law Office #

17/07/2026

⚖️ IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULING ON PROBATE & LIMITATION
Can a Probate Petition be rejected merely because it was filed several years after the testator's death?
The Supreme Court has answered: NO.
In a significant judgment dated 15 July 2026, the Court held that:
✅ A probate petition is not automatically barred merely because it is filed more than three years after the death of the testator.
✅ The right to seek probate is a continuing right and limitation begins when it becomes necessary to apply, such as when someone acts contrary to the Will.
✅ Delay may create suspicion, but suspicion is not the same as a legal bar of limitation.
✅ Courts cannot decide disputed questions regarding the genuineness or suspicious nature of a Will while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
✅ Where limitation depends upon facts such as the date of knowledge or hostile acts by other parties, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be decided summarily at the threshold.
This ruling reinforces that procedural provisions should not be used to shut out genuine claims without a full trial and proper appreciation of evidence.

Address

New Delhi

Opening Hours

Monday	10am - 5pm
Tuesday	10am - 5pm
Wednesday	10am - 5pm
Thursday	10am - 5pm
Friday	10am - 5pm
Saturday	10am - 5pm

Website

https://anjaneyalawoffice.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Adv Adarsh Varma posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.