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. Kerala Police Register FIR Against Uttar Pradesh YouTuber Over Alleged Communal Video

Kerala Police have registered an FIR against a YouTuber from Uttar Pradesh over an allegedly communal video. The BJP has pushed back on the action. Those named in the available report are Rajeev Chand

2. Delhi court upholds cheating, conspiracy proceedings against M3M promoters in ₹450-crore land dispute

Delhi court upholds cheating, conspiracy proceedings against M3M promoters in ₹450-crore land dispute

Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of a Delhi court has upheld the cheating and criminal conspiracy proceedings against M3M India Pvt. Ltd., its promoters Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal, and others in an alleged ₹450-crore land fraud case. The order was passed while hearing revision petitions filed by M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters challenging the trial court's order taking cognisance of the offences. The case arises from allegations by MGF Developments Ltd. that M3M and its group companies obtained rights over around 31 acres of land in Chauma village in Gurugram without paying the full consideration agreed in a land exchange deal. The court upheld the proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy under IPC Sections 420, 120-B and 34 and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously, with the accused directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on October 27. In its October 17 order, the court said the impugned order, to the extent that it took cognisance of cheating under Sections 420/120/34 IPC, should not be interfered with at this stage as both parties are at liberty to raise their submissions before the court of the magistrate at the time of hearing on the issue of charge. The court, however, set aside the cognisance of the offence of criminal breach of trust under IPC Section 406, holding that its ingredients were not made out, and said the January 31, 2026 impugned order to that extent is not sustainable in law as the elements of the offence of breach of trust are not made out. According to the prosecution, the deal finalised in November 2016 involved the exchange of the Chauma land for a parcel in Mohammadpur Gujar village in Sohna, Gurugram, along with a payment of ₹114 crore. While around ₹16.30 crore was paid upfront, post-dated cheques worth ₹98 crore were issued for the remaining amount; the cheques were replaced twice but were returned unpaid on March 28, 2018, following stop-payment instructions, according to the chargesheet. The prosecution alleged that the accused companies subsequently got portions of the land mutated in their names and applied for licences to develop residential projects despite the outstanding payment. Challenging the trial court's January 31 order taking cognisance of the offences, the accused argued that MGF had no locus standi to lodge the complaint and that the dispute was purely civil and contractual in nature. They also contended that the land exchange deeds were executed by separate land-owning companies and that the outstanding amount had subsequently been deposited in court. Opposing the pleas, MGF's counsel argued that the accused had allegedly made false assurances regarding payment and got the land transferred despite lacking sufficient funds to honour the cheques. The court observed that the accused had raised issues concerning the complainant's standing and the civil nature of the dispute, but held that these arguments required consideration by the magistrate at the appropriate stage. It said the evidence could not be examined in detail at the stage of taking cognisance and that the accused were at liberty to raise their submissions during the hearing on framing of charges. The case arises from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing in 2022 on MGF's complaint. Several civil proceedings relating to the land and the transaction are also pending between the parties.

3. Retired judges lobby for arbitrator posts in high-value disputes, says Madras High Court Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

Retired judges lobby for arbitrator posts in high-value disputes, says Madras High Court Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court said on Saturday (October 24, 2026) that retired judges lobby hard to be appointed as arbitrators in high value commercial disputes, creating an unhealthy situation in which arbitral disputes are allocated not on any rational principle but on lobbying, favouritism and nepotism. In his valedictory address at a 10-day course on arbitration law organised by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA), the judge said it was common knowledge and his own practical experience that a great deal of lobbying takes place, particularly from retired judges who eye high level disputes as a means to recompense themselves for their years of poverty on the Bench. He said a single arbitrator sometimes gets so many cases that he cannot allocate time for all of them, leading to inordinate delay in passing the arbitral award, and that he had set aside one such award passed by a very renowned judge on the sole ground that it was pronounced after five years. Justice Venkatesh said the dignity supposed to be maintained by judges of the constitutional courts is lost after retirement, and that once a judge, a person is always a judge till his last breath, because judgeship is a position attached to the institution; a former judge who stoops to lobbying brings discredit not only to himself but to the entire institution. He added that if a person is worthwhile to be appointed as an arbitrator, no lobbying is needed, since parties themselves will ask for that person, and that dues should be earned on worth and not by lobbying. On appointments, he said Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives wide latitude to sitting judges and that such appointments are not always made on the basis of the nature and complexity of the issue involved but on other considerations. Not confining his criticism to retired judges, he said that even among sitting judges only a few possess the requisite expertise to deal with applications filed under various provisions of the 1996 Act, since the statute provides for appointment of private judges to resolve commercial disputes and empowers them to lay down their own procedure without being bound by procedural laws. Underscoring the need for the Chief Justice to give due attention to allocating the arbitration portfolio to sitting judges, he said sitting judges are not angels, must know their limitations and must correct their mistakes, making portfolio allocation crucial. He opined that changing the arbitration portfolio from one judge to another every three months may not help in speedy delivery of justice, and that a judge must be allowed to hold the arbitration portfolio for six to nine months because of the complexities involved in commercial arbitration cases and the voluminous documents that have to be perused. He said there is no use in High Court judges lecturing others about arbitration law and that the High Court must first be efficient enough to handle Section 34 applications for setting aside arbitral awards, which requires a conscious decision while allocating the portfolio. Acknowledging that many would be offended by his open talk, he said he believes in calling a spade a spade because someone has to call it out, and that he has no problems doing so. Justice Venkatesh also highlighted the absence of institutions that could impart training to arbitrators.

4. J&K and Ladakh High Court grants bail to Hamid Hussain after 11 years in custody in 2016 wife murder case

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to Hamid Hussain, who was facing trial for the alleged murder of his wife and had been in custody for about eleven years in a case registered in

J&K and Ladakh High Court grants bail to Hamid Hussain after 11 years in custody in 2016 wife murder case

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to Hamid Hussain, who was facing trial for the alleged murder of his wife and had been in custody for about eleven years in a case registered in 2016. Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani passed the order, holding that the gravity of the accusation cannot by itself justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The Court noted that of the 50 prosecution witnesses listed, only 23 had been examined, leaving more than 25 witnesses still to be examined. The case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 109 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), with the prosecution alleging that Hussain, along with other accused, was involved in the murder of his wife. Charges were framed in 2017. Hussain denied the allegations and sought bail primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the lack of meaningful progress in the trial. When his earlier bail application was rejected in December 2024, only 19 of the 50 prosecution witnesses had been examined; that number had risen to 23 by the time the successive bail plea was considered, leaving more than half the witnesses yet to be examined. Hussain's counsel argued that the delay violated the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offence, the possibility of the accused influencing remaining witnesses and the risk of his absconding. The Court observed that although Hussain faced a serious charge, the decisive question was whether his continued detention could be justified when the trial had remained pending for years and was unlikely to conclude soon, and that no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, particularly when the law presumes the accused innocent until proven guilty. Relying on Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that a reasonably expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, and it also relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where the Supreme Court recognised that statutory restrictions on bail do not displace the constitutional courts' power to grant relief when fundamental rights are infringed. The Court referred to Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, which stressed that prosecutors should exercise discretion in selecting witnesses rather than unnecessarily prolonging proceedings by examining multiple witnesses to prove the same fact. It found the circumstances warranted bail given the prolonged detention and the substantial number of witnesses still remaining, and clarified that its decision did not determine the merits of the prosecution case, noting that it had refrained from commenting on the circumstantial evidence to avoid prejudging the trial.

5. Patna High Court Acquits Two Men In NDPS Case Over Unexplained Year-Long Delay In Sending Charas Sample For Testing

The Patna High Court acquitted two men in an NDPS case, holding that while a delay in sending seized contraband for forensic examination is not by itself fatal to an NDPS prosecution, the prosecution

Patna High Court Acquits Two Men In NDPS Case Over Unexplained Year-Long Delay In Sending Charas Sample For Testing

The Patna High Court acquitted two men in an NDPS case, holding that while a delay in sending seized contraband for forensic examination is not by itself fatal to an NDPS prosecution, the prosecution must establish the chain of custody of the sample. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar found that the alleged charas sample remained unaccounted for nearly a year before reaching the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court was hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. In May 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, had sentenced each appellant to five years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000. The prosecution case was that on December 23, 2011, police received secret information about suspected criminal activity near Shyam Cinema Hall in Muzaffarpur, where a fair was being held, and that a police party apprehended the two appellants after they attempted to flee and recovered 500 grams of charas from each. The appellants challenged their conviction on grounds including non-compliance with the statutory procedure for seizure and sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and failure to establish the custody of the seized substance. The High Court noted that although the sample was produced before the trial court in a sealed envelope on December 24, 2011, and permission to send it for chemical examination was granted on March 21, 2012, it was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory only on March 5, 2013. The Court observed that no witness had deposed as to where the sample remained during the period of nearly a year between the grant of permission and its receipt at the laboratory, who carried it there, or in what condition, and that no malkhana register was produced and no malkhana in-charge or carrier was examined. The State argued that the delay was not fatal because the sample had reached the Forensic Science Laboratory in a sealed condition and the laboratory report confirmed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Hardip Singh v State of Punjab, where a delay of 40 days in sending samples for examination was held not to be fatal because evidence established that the seized material had remained in safe custody with its seals intact, and found that no comparable evidence was available in the present case. The Court emphasised that the question was not one of delay simpliciter but of a complete absence of evidence as to the custody of the sample for the greater part of a year. It further noted that the seized substance itself had never been produced before the trial court, no inventory had been prepared, no application had been made to a Magistrate for certification or photography of the seized material, and no representative sample had been drawn in a Magistrate presence as contemplated under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. It also found that the prosecution had failed to produce contemporaneous records establishing the receipt of secret information, constitution of the raiding party, or its departure from the police station. The High Court acquitted both appellants.

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.