Manupatra Academy

Explore. Learn. Upskill. All Things Law

Courses, Cases, Research, and Resources in One Place

New

Internships

Opportunities : Playbook : Videos

Learn More

Law Notes (1^st - 5^th Year)

Structured notes with flashcards to help law students grasp core subjects quickly.

Know More

Manupatra Certified Legal Research Program

Module-based learning : Legal research skills : Certification test

Learn More

Courses

Structured learning : Practice-oriented modules : Different stages of legal practice

Learn More

News and Recent Judgment Gist

News
Gist

1. CBI raids Mansa medical store in Parvinder Jota murder case over drug trafficking angle

The CBI raided a medical store in Mansa on Saturday morning as part of its investigation into the Parvinder Jota murder case, examining a possible drug trafficking angle. The raid was carried out at M

2. Centre directs states and UTs to enforce ban on reuse of single-use medical devices

Centre directs states and UTs to enforce ban on reuse of single-use medical devices

The Centre has directed states and Union Territories to strictly enforce a ban on the reuse of single-use medical devices and disposable surgical items in public and private healthcare facilities, citing infection risks and instances of patients being charged the full cost of reused equipment. In a letter dated October 16, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) said it had come to its notice that certain private and corporate hospitals were sterilising and reusing devices meant for one-time use, particularly in critical specialities such as cardiology, nephrology, oncology, cardiothoracic and vascular surgery, and neurosurgery. The letter said such devices and disposable surgical items were being sterilised and reused after one procedure despite being designated for single use only. The DGHS said the practice raised concerns relating to patient safety, infection prevention and control, regulatory compliance and healthcare expenditure, and it flagged instances in which patients were allegedly charged the full cost of these devices despite their reuse, or the cost was reimbursed by the concerned government authorities. Devices reportedly being reused include cardiac catheters, guidewires, balloon and ablation catheters, introducer sheaths, dialysis equipment such as dialysers and blood tubing, surgical staplers, laparoscopic trocars and orthopaedic drill bits. Syringes and needles have also been identified among items being reused, according to the Association of Indian Medical Device Industry (AiMeD). The DGHS said that even after sterilisation, devices designed for one-time use may not be safe for reuse, as inadequate reprocessing or deterioration can compromise their performance and leave biological material behind. It warned that the practice could expose patients to cross-infections, device malfunction, reduced performance and other procedure-related complications, including hepatitis B and C, HIV and bacterial infections. The directorate said the practice could violate provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, and applicable infection prevention and biomedical waste management requirements. The letter stated that it had accordingly been decided that the reuse of single-use medical devices and disposable surgical items shall be strictly prohibited in all healthcare organisations, including both public and private healthcare facilities, under the administrative jurisdiction of the Government of India, states and Union Territories. The DGHS has asked chief secretaries, state health department officials, directors of health services, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and state and UT drug controllers to ensure strict vigilance and effective enforcement. Authorities have been asked to inspect and monitor healthcare establishments, ensure compliance with the directive and take appropriate action in cases of violations. The letter said all single-use devices and disposable surgical items should be utilised strictly in accordance with the instructions and recommendations of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). It also referred to a Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) office memorandum issued in December 2016 concerning the reuse of such devices in hospitals empanelled under the scheme.

3. Supreme Court: Possession Suit Beyond Limitation Periods Under Articles 54, 59, 64 Liable To Be Dismissed

Supreme Court: Possession Suit Beyond Limitation Periods Under Articles 54, 59, 64 Liable To Be Dismissed

A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi held that a suit for possession, or any ancillary relief, filed beyond the statutory periods prescribed under Articles 54, 59 or 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is liable to be dismissed as time-barred. The Court observed that the law of limitation serves the public interest by ensuring finality to litigation and aids the vigilant rather than those who sleep on their rights. The observations came while the Court dismissed an appeal filed by Smt Rano Singh and others, who had challenged a 2012 judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding the decision of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, dismissing their suit for possession. The dispute concerned a plot measuring approximately 4,132 sq yds in Friends Colony, New Delhi, together with the super-structure constructed on it. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of late Sohan Singh, claimed rights over the property on the basis of an agreement to sell executed in 1952. Sohan Singh had become a member of Nathu Ram Friends Colony Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd on January 16, 1950, and was allotted the property under an agreement to sell dated January 14, 1952, which required construction to be raised on the plot within three years. Sohan Singh paid the sale consideration of Rs 11,824 along with other charges. According to the plaintiffs, Sohan Singh, who was residing in Shimla, entrusted matters concerning the property to Sobha Singh, who acted as his agent and undertook construction of the house. The Society subsequently executed a sale deed dated December 3, 1960 in favour of defendant Gurbax Singh, son of Sobha Singh, and the plaintiffs claimed that this sale deed was a sham and voidable document. Gurbax Singh contended that Sohan Singh had forfeited all rights in the property, that he had been in continuous possession of the plot since 1954 and had himself completed the construction without any financial contribution from Sohan Singh or the plaintiffs. The suit for possession was instituted only in 1975. The Supreme Court noted that this was far beyond the three-year limitation period applicable to a suit for specific performance under Article 54 or cancellation of an instrument under Article 59, and also beyond the twelve-year period prescribed under Article 64 for a suit for possession based on prior possession, and held that the suit was "hopelessly barred by limitation." The Court further held that an agreement to sell, by itself, does not create any interest or charge in immovable property, and that title can be legally conveyed only through execution and registration of a valid sale deed in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since Sohan Singh only had an agreement to sell in his name and no registered sale deed had been executed in his favour, he could not claim possession without seeking appropriate declaratory or cancellation relief. The Bench stated that it was unable to subscribe to the reasoning of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs' suit for possession was maintainable, observing that a suit for possession simpliciter is not maintainable where there is a serious, concrete dispute casting a cloud over the plaintiff's title, necessitating a substantive prayer for declaration. The Court held that where a third party's registered sale deed creates a cloud over the plaintiff's title, the plaintiff must seek a declaration of title, or appropriate relief for cancellation of the instrument, instead of merely seeking possession. The Bench also invoked the principle of estoppel, and dealt with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. Karnataka High Court weekly round-up October 12-18, 2026; bail to Sriki and Robin Khandelwal in PMLA case

published its Karnataka High Court weekly round-up for October 12 to October 18, 2026, carrying citations 2026 (Kar) 422 to 2026 (Kar) 441 and a nominal index of the judgments and orders delivered in

Karnataka High Court weekly round-up October 12-18, 2026; bail to Sriki and Robin Khandelwal in PMLA case

published its Karnataka High Court weekly round-up for October 12 to October 18, 2026, carrying citations 2026 (Kar) 422 to 2026 (Kar) 441 and a nominal index of the judgments and orders delivered in that period. The indexed matters include Robin Khandelwal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Srikrishna Ramesh @ Sriki v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 (Kar) 422), Sanjay Patil v. State of Karnataka & Another (2026 (Kar) 423), Pritesh Bari v. State of Karnataka & Another (2026 (Kar) 424), Sri Mahabaleshwar & Another v. Sri Manoj Kumar & Others (2026 (Kar) 425), X v. State of Karnataka (2026 (Kar) 426), Mahendra Kumar Mitra v. Secretary (2026 (Kar) 427), Mubarak Shariff & Ors. v. State by K.R. Pet Rural Police & Anr (2026 (Kar) 428), The Doctor Chinmaya Mission Hospital & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2026 (Kar) 429), Zainul Abdeen v. State of Karnataka (2026 (Kar) 430), Satteppa v. State of Karnataka & Another (2026 (Kar) 431), The President Shri Vishnumurthy Temple Kalenja v. The Commissioner, Department of Religious Institutions and Endowment Fund & Others (2026 (Kar) 432), B v. Smt. A (2026 (Kar) 433), Mr Vivek M Narayan v. State of Karnataka & Another (2026 (Kar) 434), X v. Y (2026 (Kar) 435), M/s Wellness Forever Chemists and Lifestyle Store v. Assistant Drugs Controller-3(P) and Licensing Authority (2026 (Kar) 436), Arnab Goswami and State of Karnataka and Anr and Amit Malviya and State of Karnataka and Anr (2026 (Kar) 437), Abdul Samad & Anr. v. State by Vitla Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District (2026 (Kar) 438), Nagendrappa T v. State of Karnataka (2026 (Kar) 439), Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026 (Kar) 440), and State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr. (2026 (Kar) 441). In the first of the indexed rulings, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to 'hacker' Srikrishna Ramesh @ Sriki and his accountant Robin Khandelwal in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act concerning an alleged cryptocurrency scam. The petitions were Criminal Petition No. 13669 of 2026 and Criminal Petition No. 13670 of 2026, filed by the two men, who are accused of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, seeking regular bail. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petitions, observing that the case is at a pre-cognizance stage before the trial court and that the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of soon are very remote, since the documents in the case run up to 8,103 pages and 10 charge-sheet witnesses have been cited. The Enforcement Directorate is reported to have alleged laundering of funds generated by Sriki through the hacking of multiple cryptocurrency exchanges, poker and gaming websites, and to have filed a prosecution complaint against Sriki, Khandelwal and other accused. The court rejected the respondent's argument in opposition to the grant of bail.

5. Madras High Court: Husband's extramarital affair alone not cruelty under Section 498A IPC

The Madras High Court held that a husband's illicit relationship with another woman, by itself, does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Sunder Mohan refused to

Madras High Court: Husband's extramarital affair alone not cruelty under Section 498A IPC

The Madras High Court held that a husband's illicit relationship with another woman, by itself, does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Sunder Mohan refused to interfere with the acquittal of a husband who had been charged with cruelty and dowry harassment after his wife committed suicide along with their child. The court was hearing an appeal filed by the wife's brother challenging the husband's acquittal. According to the prosecution, the husband and wife married in September 2008. The prosecution alleged that the wife was subjected to cruelty in connection with a dowry demand, that the husband had an illicit relationship with another lady, and that he refused to take good care of the wife and child. The wife, it was submitted, committed suicide by jumping into water along with her one-and-a-half-year-old child, making the husband guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The trial judge had acquitted the husband, finding that the prosecution had not established the dowry demand, so the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could not be drawn. The trial court also found no evidence that the husband had subjected the wife to cruelty that drove her to commit suicide. The appellant argued that the trial court had ignored his evidence, that of his mother and other witnesses regarding the dowry demand and the illicit relationship, and that the mother had deposed clearly that her daughter was subjected to cruelty. He contended that the trial court's finding, reached without considering the evidence, was perverse and liable to be set aside. The husband submitted that the prosecution had not established either the dowry demand or the illicit relationship. The court noted that although witnesses referred to the alleged dowry demand, the allegation was very vague and would only suggest matrimonial difference on account of the illicit relationship. It also noted that the brother's initial complaint, given for a "woman missing", made no mention of any dowry demand even though he had mentioned the alleged illicit relationship. The court held that while the trial court's finding that the illicit relationship was not established was perverse, such an illicit relationship by itself would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. On the dowry demand, the court held that the allegation was improved by the prosecution witnesses since it was not made in the earliest versions. Considering all the material, the court held that the prosecution had not established its case, though the reasons given by the trial court for the acquittal could not be accepted. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant was Mr. K. Sudhakar; counsel for the respondent were Ms. Sharada Vivek and Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. V. Ayyapparaja.

1. Gir Vanvaso Resort vs. Pancard Clubs Limited (22.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1207/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between Gir Vanvaso Resort and Pancard Clubs Limited, focusing on the ownership and possession of a resort under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proces

2. Anumandala Rajesh Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (24.08.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1206/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeals by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy against the State of Karnataka and others, focusing on whether the High Court erred in quashing proceedings initiated by Red

3. Indroneel Goho vs. Razouvonuo Thong and Ors. (29.09.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1203/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal by Indroneel Goho against Razouvonuo Thong and others, focusing on whether the criminal proceedings for cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC s

4. Zaki Ullah Khan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (15.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1202/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the deed granting fishing rights to Zaki Ullah Khan constituted a lease of immovable property, thus requiring registration and stamp duty. The Collector of

5. Rasilaben and Ors. vs. Dinesh Deumal Harani and Ors. (21.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1201/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether Rasilaben and others should be impleaded as necessary parties in a suit filed by Dinesh Deumal Harani, who sought a declaration of his status as a tenant o

View More Gist.. View More News..

Law Students Hub

Notes : Flashcards : Landmark Cases & more…

Learn More

New

Legal Glossary

Complex terms decoded : Easy explanations

Learn More

On-demand Courses

Recorded classes : Comprehensive reading material :Quiz

Learn More

Self-Paced Certification

Courses to upskill or reskill

Learn More

Webinars

Recordings of experts views :Diverse topics

Learn More

Law Teachers Hub

Readings : Resources for legal educators

Learn More

Legal Posts

Explainers : Blogs : Articles : Case Analysis

Learn More

Survey Reports

AI Adoption : Technology in law

Learn More

Illustrated Cases

Legal Design : Supreme Court Cases : Multilingual Exploration

Learn More

New

Case Infographics

Quickly understand key facts, court decisions, and legal principles through easy-to-follow infographics.

Know More

Our Partners

Why Join Manupatra Academy

Brought to you by Manupatra the leaders in legal tech domain.

Curated Resources: A vast repository of meticulously compiled resources tailored for educators and learners.
Diverse Courses: An array of courses designed to cater to various levels of expertise, from beginners to advanced.
User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

What Our Learners Say

User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

It was extremely beneficial and practical… really helped me understand the nuances of civil drafting and boosted my confidence in preparing real pleadings.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The sessions were so insightful and well-structured… the faculty explained every concept with patience and clarity, which made learning much easier.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Honestly, it was a great learning experience… the course covered everything from plaints to petitions in such a smooth and engaging way.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The workshop was very hands-on and practical… I really liked the live feedback and the real examples shared during drafting exercises.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Very well conducted and informative… I just wish it could’ve been a bit longer because the sessions were that helpful.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The session was honestly eye-opening! I never realized how much time I was wasting on formatting until now.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Really practical and focused on what lawyers actually need… I can already see how it’ll save hours in my daily work.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The trainer made even the technical tools so easy to understand… and I loved how they used real pleading examples.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Very relevant for lawyers and interns alike… it bridges the tech gap we all face while working on documents.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

A concise and super useful masterclass… I now feel confident managing citations, templates, and formatting with ease.