What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 7pm Tuesday 9am - 7pm Wednesday 9am - 7pm Thursday 9am - 7pm Friday 9am - 7pm Saturday 9am - 7pm

https://jayantandassociates.com/

Bhuwan Jayant & Associates, AD Block, 48D, Block AD, Dakshini Pitampura, Pitampura, New Delhi, 110034, Delhi (2026)

26/05/2026

Supreme Court Success | Transfer Petition Allowed (Section 25 CPC)

A case filed hundreds of kilometers away.
A party struggling just to attend hearings.

What seems procedural on paper was, in reality, a question of fair access to justice.

In this matrimonial matter, we approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 25 CPC, highlighting the genuine hardship caused due to distance, logistics, and personal circumstances.

After hearing the matter, the Hon’ble Court allowed the transfer petition, directing the case to be moved to a more appropriate jurisdiction.

✔️ Result: Relief granted. Proceedings shifted. A fair chance restored.

A connected order further ensured continuity and clarity in the process — making the relief meaningful, not just technical.

Takeaway:
Transfer petitions are not just procedural tools — when argued effectively, they can directly impact a person’s ability to pursue justice.

20/05/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court on Repeated Anticipatory Bail Petitions

In a significant legal observation, the Supreme Court has held that filing anticipatory bail applications repeatedly within short intervals, without any substantial change in circumstances, amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court remarked that such practices reduce litigation to a “mere gamble” and stressed that courts must carefully examine previous rejection orders before granting relief in subsequent bail applications.

📌 Why this judgment matters:
• Reinforces judicial discipline in bail matters
• Discourages forum shopping and repeated filings
• Clarifies that fresh anticipatory bail pleas require genuine new grounds
• Strengthens the balance between personal liberty and fair investigation

This ruling is an important development in Indian criminal law and highlights the judiciary’s approach towards procedural fairness in anticipatory bail matters.

08/05/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court on Civil Appeals: Facts Are Not Re-Litigated Endlessly

In its Supreme Court Quarterly Digest 2026 (Code of Civil Procedure), the Supreme Court of India reiterated an important principle for civil litigation and appellate practice.

When lower judicial forums have recorded concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere by re-examining evidence or reappreciating factual conclusions.

However, there is an important exception.

If those findings are shown to be perverse, legally unsustainable, or based on a serious misreading of evidence, judicial interference may still be warranted.

Why this matters for litigants and businesses:

✔️ Not every civil appeal is a second trial
✔️ Strong pleadings and evidence at the initial stage are critical
✔️ Appellate courts focus on legal error, not routine factual reconsideration
✔️ Litigation strategy under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can directly impact final outcomes

This serves as a practical reminder for anyone involved in civil disputes, commercial litigation, property matters, recovery suits, or appellate proceedings:

Winning a case often begins with building it correctly from day one.

06/05/2026

⚖️ “Parties Happily Cohabited For 4 Years, Relationship Soured Later” — Supreme Court Quashes R**e Case Based On False Promise Of Marriage

In a significant judgment dated 5 May 2026, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, and 506 IPC, observing that the relationship between the parties was consensual and continued over several years.

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan held that the case did not disclose a false promise of marriage intended to deceive the complainant from the very beginning.

The Court noted:

• Both parties were already married to other persons when the relationship began
• The complainant had created a matrimonial profile before her divorce was finalized
• The parties remained in a consensual relationship from 2017 to 2020
• They travelled together, stayed together, and maintained continuous physical relations
• No complaint regarding the alleged incident of 2017 was made until February 2021

The Supreme Court observed:

> “Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured.”

The Court further reiterated an important legal principle:

👉 A distinction must be drawn between:
✔️ A false promise made with no intention to marry from the beginning
AND
✔️ A relationship where the promise could not ultimately be fulfilled due to later circumstances.

The Court also clarified that withdrawal of an earlier quashing petition without a decision on merits does not bar filing a second quashing petition.

📌 Case: *Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.*
📌 Decided On: 5 May 2026
📌 Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan & Justice Manmohan

This judgment once again reinforces that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a consensual relationship later fails.

**eCase

05/05/2026

A settlement between parties often brings relief—but in criminal law, it doesn’t always bring closure.

One of the most common misconceptions is that once both sides “settle,” the criminal case automatically comes to an end. In practice, that is not how the law operates.

Under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only certain offences are compoundable—meaning they can legally be settled between parties. However, a large category of offences—especially those involving serious allegations, public harm, or moral turpitude—are non-compoundable. In such matters, even a written settlement may not be enough to terminate proceedings.

The courts have repeatedly clarified this distinction.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that while High Courts have inherent powers to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, such powers must be exercised cautiously—particularly where the offence has a serious societal impact.

This position was further refined in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Court laid down guiding principles. It emphasized that offences arising out of personal disputes may be quashed on settlement, but heinous and serious offences—such as those involving violence, corruption, or public trust—cannot be treated as private matters.

More recently, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court reiterated that the nature and gravity of the offence must be the primary consideration—not merely the willingness of parties to settle.

What emerges is a consistent legal position:
A compromise may resolve a dispute between individuals, but it does not automatically erase the offence against society.

This is why strategy matters.
Knowing when a settlement can legally conclude proceedings—and when it cannot—is critical to how a case is approached from the very beginning.

Because in criminal law, closure is not always a matter of consent—it is a matter of law.

01/05/2026

Courtroom advocacy is not just about arguments—it’s about the right words, right timing, and right approach.

From opening the court with respect to making structured submissions, every expression used during a hearing carries weight. Phrases like “on record,” “it is respectfully submitted,” or “relief is sought” are not just formalities—they help bring clarity, maintain discipline, and ensure that the court clearly understands the facts and the request.

In matters involving criminal law, bail hearings, cheque bounce cases, or property disputes, clear communication backed by evidence can shape how a case progresses. Strong arguments are always built on facts, but their impact depends on how effectively they are presented.

Understanding basic courtroom expressions can help individuals better follow proceedings and stay aware of how legal arguments unfold.

25/04/2026

In legal proceedings, timing and technical accuracy often matter as much as the merits of the case itself.

Two aspects that are frequently overlooked—but can significantly impact outcomes—are limitation periods and court fees.

1. Limitation Periods – More than just deadlines
Every appeal, revision, or objection must be filed within a prescribed time. These timelines are not flexible by default.

Limitation generally begins from the date of the order or judgment
Courts may condone delay, but only if “sufficient cause” is clearly established
Routine reasons like oversight or delay in decision-making are often not accepted
In certain situations, time spent in obtaining certified copies may be excluded
For cross objections, the limitation runs from the date of service, not the original order

Missing the limitation period does not just delay the process—it can result in the remedy itself becoming unavailable.

2. Court Fees – Not just a procedural requirement
Court fee is directly linked to how a case is valued and filed.

Many civil matters require ad-valorem court fee, based on the value of the claim
Incorrect valuation can lead to objections, delays, or even rejection of the filing
Undervaluation may raise questions on maintainability
Overvaluation can unnecessarily increase litigation cost
Certain categories of cases carry fixed statutory fees, irrespective of claim value

Court fee is not merely administrative—it plays a role in determining whether a case is properly instituted before the court.

These procedural aspects may appear technical, but in practice, they often shape the course of litigation from the very beginning.

Understanding them helps in approaching legal remedies with clarity and preparedness.

13/04/2026

Most people think NDPS cases are simple:

“Recovery dikha diya hai… bail mushkil hai.”

But that’s only half the truth.

In reality, NDPS bail is not decided by recovery alone.

It is decided by how the recovery was made.

In court, I often see this pattern:

• Search conducted casually
• Section 50 compliance treated as a formality
• No independent witnesses
• Documentation filled mechanically

And yet, the case looks “strong” on paper.

But when you start reading between the lines, the real picture emerges.

Because under NDPS law:

Procedure is not a technicality.
Procedure is the foundation of the case.

A single lapse can change everything:

If proper rights were not communicated
If search was not conducted legally
If seizure process is doubtful

The entire prosecution story starts weakening.

And that is where bail becomes possible.

Not because the court is being lenient
But because the law demands strict compliance.

This is the reality most people don’t understand:

You don’t win NDPS matters only on facts.
You win them by testing the prosecution on procedure.

So if you or someone you know is facing an NDPS case:

Don’t just focus on “recovery”.

Look deeper into:

• Legal compliance
• Search procedure
• Documentation
• Rights of the accused

Because in criminal litigation,

It’s not just what happened.
It’s how it is recorded that decides your fate.

09/04/2026

A Practical Take on Daughter’s Right to Maintenance ⚖️

From a legal standpoint, this recent view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces something we often see in real cases:

👉 Turning 18 does not suddenly make a daughter financially independent.

In many matters, proceedings take time. During this period, if a daughter is still pursuing her education and remains dependent, it would be unfair to deny her maintenance only because she attained majority in between.

What this means in practice:

• Maintenance is based on actual dependency, not just age
• Educational expenses are a real and continuing need
• Delay in court proceedings cannot defeat rights
• Each case will still depend on its facts and circumstances

In day-to-day practice, we see families where daughters are studying, building their future, and still rely on parental support. This approach ensures that law stays practical and humane, instead of becoming overly technical.

Key takeaway:

Maintenance is about support when it is genuinely needed — not just about crossing a legal age.

07/04/2026

Can Section 498A IPC apply beyond marriage? The Supreme Court is examining this crucial question.

A significant issue has come up before the Supreme Court of India—one that could influence how criminal law is applied in the context of evolving personal relationships.

🔍 The Legal Question

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives.
Traditionally, its applicability has been limited to legally valid marriages.

👉 The question now is:
Can this provision extend to live-in relationships, where no formal marriage exists?

⚖️ Background of the Case

• The matter arises from an appeal challenging criminal proceedings initiated for alleged harassment
• The relationship in question was a live-in arrangement, not a legally recognized marriage
• The accused has argued that Section 498A should not apply outside the framework of marriage

🏛️ What the Court Has Done

• The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the scope of Section 498A IPC
• The issue is currently under judicial consideration
• The Court is expected to clarify whether existing provisions can extend to such relationships

💡 Why This Matters

This is not just a technical legal issue—it reflects a larger shift:

• Changing nature of relationships in society
• Increasing recognition of live-in arrangements in law
• Need to balance legal protection and misuse concerns

The outcome will have a direct impact on:

✔ Criminal liability in non-marital relationships
✔ Rights and remedies available to individuals
✔ Interpretation of “cruelty” under Indian law

📌 Key Takeaway

As of now, Section 498A IPC is traditionally linked to marriage.
However, with this issue before the Supreme Court of India, the scope of the law may be clarified or redefined.

📣 Final Thought

The decision will play a crucial role in shaping how criminal law adapts to modern relationship dynamics, while maintaining the intent of protecting individuals from cruelty.

Bhuwan Jayant & Associates

26/05/2026

20/05/2026

08/05/2026

06/05/2026

05/05/2026

01/05/2026

25/04/2026

13/04/2026

09/04/2026

07/04/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	9am - 7pm
Tuesday	9am - 7pm
Wednesday	9am - 7pm
Thursday	9am - 7pm
Friday	9am - 7pm
Saturday	9am - 7pm