Author: Adv. Sarita

Delhi High Court: Indian Currency Can Be Seized Under FERA; Appeals Lie Only on Questions of Law

By

The Delhi High Court, in its ruling on Arjun Patil v. Union of India & Ors., clarified two key aspects concerning foreign exchange law. It held that Indian currency involved in unauthorized foreign exchange dealings could be confiscated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Court also emphasized that appeals to the High Court under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), are restricted solely to questions of law and do not extend to factual disputes. The judgment delineates the boundary between legal and factual considerations in foreign exchange enforcement cases.

Supreme Court clarifies No Defence in Summary Suit Without Court’s Leave | Order XXXVII CPC

By

The Supreme Court held in *Executive Trading Co. v. Grow Well Mercantile* that defendants in summary suits under Order XXXVII CPC must obtain the court’s permission (“leave to defend”) before filing any defence. The ruling preserves the fast-track nature of summary proceedings, requiring defendants to apply within set timelines and support their plea with an affidavit showing a substantial defence. Courts may grant leave with conditions, but cannot permit routine replies without leave. The decision enforces strict procedural compliance to protect quick recovery of liquidated commercial claims.

Supreme Court Rules: If Motor Accident Claimants Can’t Prove Income, Insurers Must Provide Minimum Wage Data

By

In a landmark ruling on September 3, 2025, the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari directed that when motor accident claimants cannot prove income, insurance companies must furnish applicable minimum wage notifications to tribunals. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra enhanced compensation for an 8-year-old Gujarat boy with 90% disability from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakh, fixing his income at skilled worker minimum wages.

The Court held that minors cannot be treated as non-earning individuals, emphasizing compensation based on skilled worker wages, with additions for future prospects. Insurance companies now bear responsibility to present wage data in disputed claims. The judgment, circulated nationwide to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, ensures uniform application. This decision strengthens claimants’ rights, curbs arbitrary awards, and sets higher benchmarks for fair compensation in accident cases across India.

Gayatri Balasamy and the Fine Line Between Correction and Overreach

By

The Supreme Court’s 4:1 ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. allows limited modification of arbitral awards under Section 34, marking a significant shift in Indian arbitration law. The majority held that correcting severable, manifest errors avoids wasteful re-arbitration while preserving arbitral autonomy, relying on implied powers and Article 142. The dissent warned this risks judicial overreach and undermines arbitral finality. Though safeguards were outlined, their effectiveness depends on judicial restraint. Without legislative clarity, this flexibility may unsettle investor confidence and enforcement abroad. Parliament must codify clear limits to balance efficiency with finality.

SC Reiterates: Agreement to Sell Without Specific Performance Suit Can’t Confer Ownership Rights

By

The Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. reaffirmed that an agreement to sell, without a suit for specific performance, cannot confer ownership or title in immovable property. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that only a registered sale deed can legally convey title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on a 2014 agreement to sell and a revoked PoA, reiterating that such documents are not conveyances. Citing Suraj Lamp and other precedents, the Court emphasized that agreements to sell cannot substitute a registered deed of conveyance.

Supreme Court to Examine Karnataka’s Plea Against Retrospective Application of Pankaj Bansal Judgment on Furnishing Grounds of Arrest

By

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Karnataka’s plea challenging a High Court ruling that applied the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) judgment retrospectively. In Pankaj Bansal, the Court held that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused at the time of arrest. Karnataka argues this rule applies prospectively, not to arrests before October 3, 2023. The State also cited Ram Kishor Arora v. ED (2024), where the Court held non-furnishing of grounds before Pankaj Bansal was not illegal. The case, listed for July 18, 2025, will clarify whether such safeguards apply retrospectively.

Right to File Appeal Against Conviction Is a Constitutional Right, Not Just a Statutory One: Supreme Court

By

The Supreme Court, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that the right to appeal against conviction is not only statutory but also a constitutional right. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that an accused must be able to challenge both the merits and procedural aspects of a trial, ensuring fairness and due process. The Court also ruled that a High Court, while hearing an appeal filed only by the convict, cannot suo motu enhance the sentence, as appellate and revisional powers are distinct. The judgment reinforces appellate rights and procedural justice.