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. Supreme Court: non-parties may challenge consent decree on showing prejudice under Section 96(3) CPC

The Supreme Court has held that a non-party to a compromise decree is not barred under Section 96(3) read with Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from challenging it, but

Supreme Court: non-parties may challenge consent decree on showing prejudice under Section 96(3) CPC

The Supreme Court has held that a non-party to a compromise decree is not barred under Section 96(3) read with Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from challenging it, but must prima facie establish that the decree prejudicially affects independent rights or interests and obtain leave of the appellate court. A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the statutory bar applies to parties to the compromise and cannot be mechanically extended to a stranger asserting an affected independent legal interest. It held that limitation for a non-party cannot be calculated mechanically from the date of the decree and that the court must consider when the aggrieved person acquired, or could reasonably have acquired, knowledge of the decree and the prejudice. The Court also said an appellate court can grant interim protection pending adjudication of an appeal. It dismissed the appeal filed by Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel against the high court's decision granting leave to appeal to respondent Nos. 1-9, condoning an 11-year delay and continuing an interim injunction. The appellant had contended that an appeal under Section 96 CPC is not maintainable against a consent decree and that a non-party could not acquire a cause of action; the Court rejected that contention. It found serious questions over the land transaction and whether the legal heirs of Purshottam Punjabhai had a subsisting right or title capable of being conveyed, noted the appellant's alleged power of attorney and links to Geetagram Society, and said the respondents' asserted interest was not so tenuous as to foreclose appellate access at the threshold, without establishing fraud or collusion. It upheld the interim injunction, noting the high court had heard the appellant and respondent Nos. 1-9 after its ex parte order.

2. Patna High Court quashes Arms Act proceedings against four accused over lack of Section 39 sanction

Patna High Court quashes Arms Act proceedings against four accused over lack of Section 39 sanction

The Patna High Court, in a Single Judge Bench decision by Justice Rana Vikram Singh, quashed criminal proceedings against four accused arising from an FIR lodged by Abdul Halim alleging that on December 9, 2013, the accused intercepted him and his companion while they were carrying ₹80,000 for labourers' wages, threatened them with firearms, and that petitioner Md. Moajjam snatched the cash and a pistol fell from his possession. The police submitted a final report dated March 31, 2015, treating the occurrence as false and recommending prosecution of the informant under Sections 182 and 211 IPC, but the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Begusarai, took cognizance on October 28, 2015, under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504 and 379 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act. The accused's revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai, on March 21, 2017; the Revisional Court held that the materials disclosed a prima facie case and that the sanction objection could be raised at the framing-of-charge stage. The petitioners then moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, objecting that the Arms Act prosecution lacked the mandatory previous sanction under Section 39. The High Court held that Section 39 requires previous sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecution under Section 3 and is statutory and cannot be dispensed with where attracted; a statutory bar demonstrated from the record cannot be treated as an inconsequential objection or invariably postponed without examining its legal effect, and its applicability must be considered with reference to the precise offence alleged and the sanction record. It also held that while a Magistrate is not bound by the investigating officer's opinion, the power to take cognizance must be exercised on due application of judicial mind, merely filing an application seeking cognizance does not establish the truthfulness of the informant's allegations, and the materials must disclose sufficient grounds. The Court noted connected proceedings in Bakhari P.S. Case No. 232 of 2014 in which Abdul Halim was accused regarding the same firearm, and that an earlier High Court order dated April 13, 2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11048 of 2017 had quashed the cognizance order in the connected case and directed consideration of its records and charge-sheet.

3. Madras High Court directs DVAC to file charge sheet after PMO sanction to prosecute two IAS officers

Madras High Court directs DVAC to file charge sheet after PMO sanction to prosecute two IAS officers

The Madras High Court was told that the Prime Minister’s Office has granted sanction to prosecute IAS officers K.S. Kandasamy and K. Vijaya Karthikeyan under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the ₹98.25-crore corporation tender irregularities case primarily registered against former AIADMK Minister S.P. Velumani. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh recorded the submission by Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan and directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to proceed with filing the charge sheet against all the accused. The court had earlier directed the State government to send files to the Centre and suo motu impleaded the Department of Personnel and Training to expedite sanction after Arappor Iyakkam’s Jayaram Venkatesan filed a 2025 contempt petition against DVAC officials. After the sanction order was submitted, the judge deleted the DoPT from the array of respondents and kept the contempt petition pending only to monitor DVAC’s further progress. The DVAC had registered an FIR in 2021 based on the complaint regarding Greater Chennai and Coimbatore municipal corporation civil contracts awarded between 2014 and 2018, and the then Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M. Appavu granted sanction to prosecute Velumani on February 12, 2024. The Tamil Nadu government later forwarded its proposal to the DoPT; on September 16, 2026, DoPT Joint Secretary Sushil Kumar Patel told the court that the PMO was the competent authority and that files had been sent to the Central Vigilance Commission, with the process assured to be completed within two months.

4. NCDRC rejects Bajaj Allianz delay condonation; written version time-barred in Waaree Energies complaint

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected an application by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking condonation of delay in filing its written version in a consumer complai

5. Kerala High Court directs State to implement recommendations on digital organ donation platform, transparent pricing

Kerala High Court directs State to implement recommendations on digital organ donation platform, transparent pricing

The Kerala High Court directed the State Government to accept and implement the recommendations of the Transplantation Advisory Committee on reforms in organ donation and transplantation. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the direction while disposing of a writ petition that raised issues regarding organ donation in Kerala. The petitioner had sought compliance with directions in WP(C) 33801 of 2017, particularly regarding press releases in print and electronic media seeking willing altruistic donors for patients unable to undergo transplant surgery due to lack of a matching donor. The Court considered the Advisory Committee's report from its meeting held on November 19, 2025, placed before it by the State. The recommendations included a digital platform through KSOTTO for non-directed altruistic donations of kidneys, portions of liver and skin for therapeutic purposes; only KSOTTO would invite applications, with confidentiality and anonymity; donor evaluation expenses would initially be borne by KSOTTO with possible reimbursement by the recipient after successful transplantation. The Committee proposed separate allocation mechanisms for kidneys, livers and skin. For kidneys, priority would first go to the transplantation centre chosen by the donor, followed by domino organ donation chains and swap donation pairs, with allocation based on immunological compatibility and NOTTO kidney allocation criteria; where multiple patients were equally suitable, preference would go to those without a suitable living near-relative donor, then to patients whose suitable near-relative donors had refused in writing. Similar principles were recommended for liver transplantation, and skin transplantation criteria included the donor's chosen centre, medical emergencies and the transplantation centre's waiting list. The Committee recommended a swap kidney donation programme under Section 9(3A) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act and a KSOTTO digital platform to assess patient load for end-stage renal disease, end-stage liver disease and heart diseases requiring transplantation. It also recommended voluntary disclosure of transplantation charges by centres, publication by KSOTTO of an upper ceiling on charges in consultation with high-volume centres and experts, simplification of procedures before Hospital-Level Competent Authorities and District-Level Authorisation Committees, and a single-window, time-bound clearance mechanism. The High Court also took note of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Indian Society of Organ Transplantation v. Union of India [2026 (1) KHC 91 (SC)]. The judgment citation was [2026 (Ker) 623].

1. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (06.11.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1285/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Union of India, along with the States of Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan, regarding Himachal Pradesh's ent

2. Yusuf vs. Vigyapan Loke Delhi Advertising CGHS Ltd. (06.11.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1284/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the suit filed by Wazir Hussain against Vigyapan Loke Delhi Advertising CGHS Ltd. was barred by limitation due to entries in the defendant's balance sheets

3. A. John Kennedy and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (06.11.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1283/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of eviction, rehabilitation, and ecological restoration in forest areas, focusing on the applicability of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Fore

4. Union of India and Ors. vs. Rohith Nathan and Ors. (06.11.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1282/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the Union of India's request to clarify the retrospective application of a judgment dated 11.03.2026 concerning OBC creamy-layer status in civil service allocation

5. J. Rajesh (Minor) thr. his Mother and Natural Guardian J. Gomathi vs. M. Kumaran (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. (06.11.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1281/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether J. Rajesh, represented by his mother J. Gomathi, could claim a half share in his grandfather N. Ramakrishnan's property, which was inherited by his father,

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.