Shri Ganpati Jurists

Call Directions Website Contact the business

Shri Ganpati Jurists Welcome To Shri Ganpati Jurists :- Facilitating Simpler Legal Avenues

14/09/2026

🙏

14/09/2026

⚖️ PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED — WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ASSETS?

The Supreme Court has clarified an important aspect of partnership law in:

V. Sumitra Reddy v. K. Ranganadha Reddy
2026 INSC 979 | Supreme Court | 9 September 2026

When a partnership firm is dissolved, the rights of partners do not simply end with dissolution.

Under Sections 46 & 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932:

📌 Firm assets are applied towards liabilities.

📌 Partners’ advances and capital are settled.

📌 The remaining residue is distributed according to the partners’ rights.

📌 Where there is no mutually agreed settlement, liquidation of partnership assets may become necessary.

📌 A reconstituted firm cannot simply continue using the assets of the dissolved firm without settling the rights of the partners.

The judgment also highlights the important distinction between retirement of a partner and dissolution of the firm.

👉 A significant judgment for partnership disputes involving land, property, accounts and dissolution.

Save this post for your next partnership-law discussion.

CorporateLaw LegalUpdate LawUpdates LegalNews PartnershipDispute DissolutionOfPartnership LawyersOfIndia LegalAwareness ShriGanpatiJurists

07/09/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT LEGAL UPDATE

CAN A BANK INVOKE SARFAESI FOR A LOAN ORIGINALLY GRANTED BY AN NBFC?

The Supreme Court says — YES.

In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta & Ors., 2026 INSC 943, decided on 02 September 2026, the Supreme Court considered whether a bank can invoke the SARFAESI Act for a secured loan originally granted by an NBFC that was not covered by SARFAESI when the loan was created.

🔹 WHAT DID THE COURT HOLD?

The Court held that where a bank already covered by SARFAESI acquires a non-performing secured loan from an entity not covered by the Act, the acquired loan can become a secured debt covered by SARFAESI.

Therefore, the borrower cannot defeat SARFAESI proceedings merely by arguing that the original lender was not covered by the Act at the time of lending.

🔹 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

The ruling has significant implications for:

▪️ Assignment of NPAs by NBFCs to Banks
▪️ SARFAESI recovery proceedings
▪️ Secured creditors
▪️ Borrowers challenging bank enforcement
▪️ DRT proceedings

⚠️ Important: The judgment does not mean that every SARFAESI action is automatically valid. Other factual and legal objections can still be examined on their merits.

Case: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Trupti Sanjay Mehta & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 943
Date: 02.09.2026

📌 Save this post for future reference.

NPA DebtRecovery LegalUpdate IndianLaw Lawyer LegalAwareness BankingLitigation NBFC SecuredDebt

03/09/2026

🦚🦚🦚🦚

01/09/2026

🏠⚖️ JOINT PROPERTY ≠ AUTOMATIC INJUNCTION

Can one co-sharer stop another co-sharer from constructing on jointly owned property?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Suman Devi v. Gayatri Devi (31.08.2026), clarified:

❌ Mere joint ownership is not enough.

❌ Mere construction does not automatically amount to ouster.

✅ The co-sharer seeking injunction must show material prejudice, ouster, diminution of value/utility, or interference with their rights and enjoyment.

The Court also reiterated the three essentials for interim injunction:

1️⃣ Prima facie case
2️⃣ Balance of convenience
3️⃣ Irreparable injury

📌 Key takeaway: In a co-sharer dispute, the real question is not simply whether the property is joint—but whether the act complained of actually prejudices the legal rights of the other co-sharer.

Save this post if you deal with property or partition disputes.

Injunction CivilLaw LegalAwareness LegalUpdate IndianLaw LawFirm HimachalPradeshHighCourt

28/08/2026

Happy Raksha Bandhan

26/08/2026

THIRD PARTY + SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE = AUTOMATIC IMPLEADMENT?

Not necessarily.

In a significant judgment dated 25 August 2026, the Calcutta High Court considered whether a third party claiming an independent title over the property could be impleaded in a suit for specific performance under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

The Court held that where such impleadment would change the nature of the proceedings from a suit for specific performance into a dispute concerning declaration of title, the third party need not be added.

📌 Case: Panchanan Pal v. Shravan Kumar Agarwal & Another
📌 C.O. No. 2013 of 2021
📌 Calcutta High Court | 25.08.2026

Key principle: A specific-performance suit primarily concerns the enforceability of the contract between the contracting parties. An independent claim of title cannot automatically be introduced into those proceedings.

For educational and informational purposes only.

CivilProcedure PropertyLaw IndianLaw LegalInsights

21/08/2026

Mother earning = Father pays less? Not automatically.

The Supreme Court has clarified an important point in child maintenance matters.

In Sujata Kumari & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar & Anr., 2026 INSC 896:

• Mother was earning ₹1.5 lakh/month
• Father stated his income was ₹2 lakh/month
• High Court reduced maintenance for each daughter from ₹30,000 to ₹15,000
• Supreme Court restored ₹30,000 per month for each daughter

The Court said that the mother’s earnings, by themselves, are not a reason to halve the father’s liability.

The responsibility of parents towards their children cannot simply be divided through arithmetic. The daily care and upbringing of children also represents a real contribution.

Legal Update | Family & Matrimonial Law

IndianLaw LegalAwareness LawUpdate Advocate LegalNews

16/08/2026

Can a senior citizen simply use the Senior Citizens Act to evict a son from property? ⚖️

Not necessarily.

In M. Pounammal v. Vinayagam, the Madras High Court considered a case where a mother sought eviction of her son from her property under the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court held that a complaint filed only for eviction, without seeking maintenance, could not be maintained under the Act.

At the same time, eviction can be possible where it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen.

The Senior Citizens Act is a protective law — not a shortcut for every property dispute.

Before taking action, the correct legal remedy must be identified.

Shri Ganpati Jurists
Advocates & Legal Consultants

IndianLaw MadrasHighCourt Lawyer LegalRights ShriGanpatiJurists

14/08/2026

🇮🇳

Address

Chamber No. 158, Ground Floor, District Court, Bathinda Head Office:/Fire Brigade Chowk, Near A. C. Market, The Mall Road
Bathinda
151001

Telephone

+919833844000

Website

Alerts

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

Contact The Business

Send a message to Shri Ganpati Jurists:

Shortcuts

Share

Category