The Delhi High Court ruled that a sister relinquishing her property rights in favor of her brother is not a gift

The Delhi High Court ruled that a sister relinquishing her property rights in favor of her brother is not a gift, but a family settlement among co-owners.

In the landmark case Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 8 October 2025, the Delhi High Court clarified that when legal heirs relinquish their rights in inherited property in favor of another co-owner, such a transaction is not a gift under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore does not attract gift-related stamp duty.

🔍 Key Highlights from the Judgment

  • Case Title: Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
  • Citation: LPA No. 346 of 2020
  • Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
  • Date of Decision: 8 October 2025
  • Court: Delhi High Court

🧾 Legal Interpretation

  • Relinquishment ≠ Gift: The court held that a relinquishment deed executed by sisters in favor of their brother, who was also a co-owner, is not a gratuitous transfer. It is a release of rights in a jointly inherited property.
  • Stamp Duty Implication: Since the deed does not constitute a gift, it is not liable for stamp duty under the gift provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.
  • Nature of Transaction: T

Supreme Court rules that Banks fully liable for fraudulent withdrawals

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court has ruled that banks are fully liable if money is fraudulently
withdrawn from a customer’s account. The decision, delivered on 3rd January 2025 in the case of State Bank of India vs. Pallabh Bhowmik and Others, reinforces the accountability of financial institutions in safeguarding customer funds.


Banking expert Vidyadhar Anaskar emphasized that the ruling provides significant relief to account holders, affirming that banks cannot evade responsibility in cases of fraud. The verdict is expected to have a profound impact on banking operations and consumer protectionin the financial sector.
The court based its decision on Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, Section 10 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, and the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The ruling mandates that banks must fully compensate customers for fraudulent withdrawals and ensure strict security measures to prevent such incidents.

During the hearing, the account holder argued that the bank had failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing adequate fraud prevention measures. It was also alleged that the bank violated the Consumer Protection Act by neglecting its duty to protect customer funds. In response, the bank contended that it bore no negligence and that the customer’s failure to act promptly had contributed to the fraud.

However, the Supreme Court firmly held that the safety of customer deposits is not just a courtesy but a fundamental responsibility of banks. The judgment stressed that financial institutions must establish robust security systems to prevent fraud and cannot shift the burden onto customers under any circumstances.
This decision sets a critical precedent for the banking industry, reinforcing consumer rights and highlighting the necessity for stringent cybersecurity measures. Anaskar noted that this ruling will enhance public trust in banks and encourage financial institutions to adopt more effective fraud prevention mechanisms.
With this verdict, banks are expected to implement immediate and comprehensive security upgrades to protect customer accounts, ensuring better compliance with consumer protection laws and regulatory requirements.

Seminar against Corruption

Realm of Law a legal firm headed by Shri K. V. J Rao, along with Petition Group Foundation (an NGO) established to fight corruption in Administration are renowned for fighting against the growing number of corruption cases in redevelopment projects.

Since 2023, we started holding educational seminars to guide Citizens cheated by developers, the last seminar was conducted on 26th May 2024.

Hence, due to the requests from several members, we are organising another seminar on 4th Aug 2024 (Sunday).

Topic covered in the seminar would be:

  1. Criminal aspects of frauds in Redevelopment Projects and how to address them.
  2. How to file FIR’s against Developers based on their acts of omissions and commissions.
  3. Common issues in Society Matters.
    A) How to legally fight a corrupt managing committee.
    B) How to legally fight corrupt/non cooperating flat owners.

ALONG WITH THE ABOVE SUBJECT WE’RE ALSO ADDRESSING CRITICAL SUBJECT .
We’re having an educative talk given by Shri K. V. J Rao giving guidance and information on how to fight corruption and injustice in public offices. We intend to guide common citizens on HOW to fight corruption and target corrupt public servants indulging in deficiency of duties.

The session is intended to motivate common citizens to fight against the corruption done by public servants. The seminar will educate all on methods to expose and put such public servants to shame.
The topics of interest :-
1] How to file criminal cases against public servants.
2] How best to self represent your cases before the learned Magistrate.
3] How to interpret past judgements before the learned Magistrate to get a conducive order.
4] How to prosecute culprits in your case.
5] To discuss about the success stories of individuals who fought for their own rights and achieved good, favourable orders / replies from various government authorities.

SPEAKERS:

1. Shri. K.V.J. RAO
 Activist and domain expert on criminal law.

2. Shri. AMEET ISRANI
 Expert on Society Matters.

Kindly note that the queries will be taken by prior submission to the organiser (9870392223) and it is the jurisdiction of the organiser to take the matter on board as per relevance to the topic.

Details:

Day, Date and Time :
Sunday, 4.08.2024
9 AM to 6 PM

Venue :
Sarvodaya – Centre for Capacity Building- FIRST FLOOR HALL.
Gate # 3, St. Pius X College Complex,
Off Virwani Industrial Estate Road,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063

Landmark: Take the IITC Road from Umiyadham Jain Mandir.

Google Map Link: https://goo.gl/maps/TGoShRXT5Tbv6pSC9

LIMITED SEATS FOR 90 PARTICIPANTS ONLY.

Fees: Rs.500 by prior online transfer via Bank Details or UPI ID or scanner barcode.

Arrangements at the Venue:-
1) Breakfast & Tea will be provided.
2) Lunch will be served in the dining hall.
3) Evening Snacks and Tea will be provided.

If interested, then kindly contact on the below mobile number for any enquiry:

Shri. Mahavir Ghongade
9870392223

Shri. Neeraj Pattath
9769767969

Bank details for payment are:
BANK NAME:
Canara Bank
ACCOUNT NAME: Mahaavir Ghongade
ACCOUNT NO:
110105879520
Account Branch:
Canara Bank, Malad East
IFSC CODE: CNRB0002695
UPI ID:
mahaavirghongade@cnrb

Please send the screenshot of the payment or details of payment to the mobile number 9870392223 for confirmation.

Prior registration is compulsory. The organizers reserve the right of admission.

Kindly Note: The registration amount you pay is only for the expenses of the hall rent, tea, snacks, lunch and more importantly the speakers are not soliciting business but rendering Honorarium Services Free of Cost.

Walk-in/gate crashers will not be permitted.

Kindly forward this message to those who may be interested.

Thank You

Realm of Law & Petition Group Foundation.

http://www.realmoflaw.com

http://www.petitiongroup.com

Section 138 cheque bouncing cases

Section 138 cheque bouncing cases:

    Made simple to understand:  

    A complete Resource:  

I am excited to share the Resource I am developing about cheque bouncing cases. https://www.litigationplatform.com/Judgment/Index/60104591-fc87-4cd8-af8a- 26c08c5a9465

It is an organized compilation of HC and SC Rulings on all aspects of cheque bouncing Cases.

It will help in understanding the intricacies of criminal trial and might help in getting swift outcomes.

Regards, Sandeep Jalan Advocate

Why the new Consumer Protection Act is a Death Knell of Consumer Rights

Jehangir Gai

No matter how attractive or appealing something may look on paper, it is of no use whatsoever if it does not achieve its objective, and worse when it actually harms the very cause it is supposed to espouse. This is the case with the Consumer Protection Act 2019 which comes into effect from today, repealing the earlier enactment of 1986.

Let us look at the existing scenario. The District Consumer Forum which till now had a pecuniary limit of Rs 20 lakhs, are mostly located in premises which are too small, especially in urban areas where the filing of cases is more and there is a scarcity of adequate space. Consequently, files are spilling over even in corridors, and there is hardly any place for movement. The Forum is manned by just one or maximum two clerks, who find it difficult to cope with the existing work load of accepting complaints, scrutinising them, preparing and despatching notices, accepting of deposits and investing the money during the pendency of appeals, issuing certified copies of orders, etc.

Similarly, there is also a dearth of stenographers, and there is just one stenographer who has to sit on the dais during court hours to take dictation of daily proceedings of each case (known as the case roznama), and thereafter take dictation of judgments from the Presiding Officer as well as two members, Imagine the plight when there is just one steno between three persons. Consequently, judgments are invariably delayed, sometime by two to six months. Besides, when the steno proceeds on leave due to an illness or for some family occasion, the work of the forum comes to a grinding halt.

Read the full article at https://www.mxmindia.com/2020/07/why-the-new-consumer-protection-act-is-a-death-knell-of-consumer-rights/

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 notified with effect from 20 July, 2020

The main features of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are as follows:-

1. District forum is renamed as District Commission

2. The Opposite Party needs to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by District Commission before filing appeal before State Commission, earlier the ceiling was of maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, which has been removed.

3. The limitation period for filing of appeal to State Commission is increased from 30 days to 45 days, while retaining power to condone the delay.

4. State Commission shall have a minimum of 1 President and 4 Members

5. The original pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commission shall be uptil Rs. 1 Crore, State Commission from 1 Cr – 10 Cr. And NCDRC to be more than Rs. 10 crore

6. Now complainant can also institute the complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission where the complainant resides or personally works for gain besides what was provided earlier

7. Section 49(2) and 59(2) of the new act gives power to the State Commission and NCDRC respectively to declare any terms of contract, which is unfair to any consumer, to be null and void.

8. A second appeal to NCDRC has been provided U/s 51(3) if there is a substantial question of law involved in the matter

9. Power of revision can still be exercised by NCDRC U/s 58(1)(b) and by State commission under 47(1)(b) of the Act.

10. Power of review has been conferred to District Commission, State Commission and NCDRC U/s 40, 50 and 60 of the Act respectively

11. NCDRC can hear appeals against the order of Central Authority by virtue of Section 58 of the Act

12. Period of limitation in filing of complaint remains 2 years with a provision for condonation of delay power U/s 69 of the Act

13. Section 70 provides for administrative control of State Commission over District Commission and that of NCDRC over State Commission. It inter alia provides for investigation into any allegations against the President and members of a State Commission / District Commission and submitting inquiry report to the State Government concerned along with copy endorsed to the Central Government for necessary action

14. Section 71 confers power of execution as provided Under Order XXI, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with such limitation as provided in the section

15. Mediation is given statutory status by way of introduction of Section 74 in the new Act

16. A product liability action may be brought by a complainant against a product manufacturer or a product service provider or a product seller, as the case may be, for any harm caused to him on account of a defective product.

17. Chapter III of the Act provides for creation of Central Authority to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumers, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers as a class

18. The Central Authority shall have an Investigation Wing headed by a Director General for the purpose of conducting inquiry or investigation under this Act as may be directed by the Central Authority

19. The Act of 2019 has come into effect w.e.f. 9.8.19 and old Act of 1986 stands repealed, subject to section 1(3) of the New Act.

20. Rules regarding appointment, conditions of service etc. of the Members are to be notified soon.

*The list is not exhaustive and the above is just a bird’s eye view only of the new Act. For more / exact details kindly refer to the notification dated 9.8.19 notifying the Act.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 notification

Forfeiture of Booking Amount is not allowed

MahaRera Appellate Tribunal order dt 29 June 2020 holding that forfeiture of booking amount is bad as the customers are forced to sign on one sided clauses. Relying on SC judgement in Pioneer Land and Infrastructure Vs. Govindan Raghavan in Civil Appeal No.72238 of 2O78 decided on 2nd April 2019 by Supreme Court, directions to refund the booking amount of Rs.6.95 lacs towards 5 % flat value

This judgement now mandates that one sided clauses used to forfeit booking amounts will not be upheld by courts… Presumption of unfair negotiation and one sided clauses…

Another pro consumer and testing time for developers….

Click Here for the judgement -21466 OF 2019