Adv Adarsh Varma

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.

⚖️ Supreme Court Says: A Bounced Cheque is a Serious Promise, Not Just PaperCase: Kuntegowda vs. Thurubaiah | 2026 INSC ...
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.

Supreme Court Reaffirms the Scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPCThe Supreme Court has reiterated that amendments to pleadings c...
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.

⚖️ SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS: COURTS CANNOT FORCE COMPENSATION IN PLACE OF A DECREED LEGAL RIGHTIn a significant judgment,...
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.

⚖️ Consumer Rights > Arbitration ClausesThe Supreme Court has ruled that a consumer complaint cannot be pushed into arbi...
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 #

⚖️ IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULING ON PROBATE & LIMITATIONCan a Probate Petition be rejected merely because it was filed ...
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.

The recent spate of incidents involving the alleged murder of husbands by their spouses has reignited a long-standing de...
07/07/2026

The recent spate of incidents involving the alleged murder of husbands by their spouses has reignited a long-standing debate regarding the institutional recognition of issues affecting men. While each criminal case must be adjudicated on its own facts, these incidents have highlighted a broader concern: whether the Indian legal framework possesses adequate mechanisms to study, address, and recommend reforms concerning challenges uniquely or disproportionately faced by men.
The proposal for a National Commission for Men must be examined not through the prism of gender rivalry, but through the constitutional lens of equality and access to justice.
Issues such as male victimisation in domestic relationships, mental health challenges arising from matrimonial disputes, parental alienation, custodial disadvantages in child-related proceedings, and allegations of misuse of legal processes have increasingly entered public discourse. Equally concerning are instances where men have been victims of domestic violence, extortion, abetment to su***de, or even homicide within intimate relationships. The absence of a dedicated institutional body often results in these concerns being examined only through fragmented litigation rather than comprehensive policy evaluation.
The demand for a National Commission for Men, therefore, should not be viewed as a challenge to women's rights. It is, instead, a call for a more comprehensive framework of gender justice—one that recognises that constitutional compassion and legal protection cannot be selectively distributed.

⚖️ IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULINGCan a person wake up after nearly 40 years and seek enforcement of an old property agre...
02/07/2026

⚖️ IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULING

Can a person wake up after nearly 40 years and seek enforcement of an old property agreement?

The Supreme Court has answered: No.

In a landmark judgment dated 1 July 2026, the Court held that a suit for specific performance based on a decades-old agreement was clearly barred by limitation.

🔹 Limitation for specific performance suits is generally 3 years.
🔹 Courts can reject such claims at the very beginning under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
🔹 Stale and delayed claims cannot be revived through clever drafting.

The Court observed that a litigant who remains silent for decades cannot be permitted to initiate litigation as an afterthought.

A strong reaffirmation that justice requires both rights and timely action.

⚖️ Anjaneya Law Office

⚖️ Justice Beyond TechnicalitiesCan compensation be awarded when an accident is caused by a falling tree branch during h...
23/06/2026

⚖️ Justice Beyond Technicalities
Can compensation be awarded when an accident is caused by a falling tree branch during heavy rain?
The Supreme Court held that such an incident could not be treated as arising from the "use of a motor vehicle" for the purpose of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

However, considering the severe and permanent injuries suffered by the victim, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 and enhanced the compensation to ₹25,00,000 plus interest.

📌 A judgment that balances legal principle with human compassion.
Anjaneya Law Office

PAST ALLEGATIONS DON'T DEFINE THE FUTURESupreme Court: Compromise in a criminal case is not an admission of guilt.Truthf...
23/06/2026

PAST ALLEGATIONS DON'T DEFINE THE FUTURE
Supreme Court: Compromise in a criminal case is not an admission of guilt.
Truthful disclosure + absence of proven misconduct = fair consideration for public employment.
Past allegations are not proof of guilt.
The Supreme Court has clarified that a criminal case resolved through a lawful compromise does not automatically reflect poor character or justify denial of public employment.
✅ Compromise ≠ Admission of Guilt
✅ Truthful Disclosure Matters
✅ Decisions Must Be Based on Evidence, Not Presumptions
A significant ruling reinforcing fairness and due process in public employment.
⚖️ Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (2026)
— Anjaneya Law Office

Address

New Delhi

Opening Hours

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

Website

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.

Shortcuts

Share

Category