⚖️ Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ WHEN IS A WILL LEGALLY VALID? Important principles for proving execution of a Will 📌 Mere production of a Will is NOT enough. The law requires strict proof of its execution. ✅ Key Legal Requirements: ✍️ 1. Signature of Testator The Will must be signed/marked by the testator showing intention to give effect to it. 👥 2. Attestation by Witnesses At least two witnesses must attest the Will. 📜 3. Witnesses Must Confirm Execution They should have seen the testator sign or received acknowledgment from him/her. 🏛️ 4. Examination of Witness Generally, at least one attesting witness must be examined before the Court. ⚠️ 5. Suspicious Circumstances = Higher Burden If doubts exist regarding: • Mental condition of testator • Undue influence or coercion • Fraud or fabrication • Unnatural dispositions ➡️ The person relying on the Will must remove all suspicions with convincing evidence. 🧠 6. Test of Judicial Conscience The Court examines whether the testator: ✔️ Was of sound mind ✔️ Understood the contents of the Will ✔️ Acted voluntarily and freely 📍 Principle: A Will succeeds not merely by existence, but by lawful execution and trustworthy proof. ⚖️ Proper execution + credible evidence = Valid Will #Will #SuccessionLaw #LegalAwareness #InheritanceLaw #CivilLaw #EvidenceAct #Advocate #LawUpdate

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️  WHEN IS A WILL LEGALLY VALID? Important pr…

⚖️ Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Did You Know? Can a person legally sell property despite a Court’s stay/injunction order? The answer may be NO. In Jitendra Gupta v. Shri Sunil Sharma (MP High Court, Gwalior), the Court observed that a sale deed executed in violation of a temporary injunction order can be treated as null and void, with consequences including: ✅ Cancellation of sale deed
✅ Return of consideration amount
✅ Penalty for disobedience of Court orders
✅ Contempt proceedings for false statements/affidavits The Court also suggested measures to prevent registration of documents where interim orders are in force. ❓Question:
 If property is transferred during pending litigation despite a Court’s restraint order, should such transfer be protected or cancelled? Share your view below. 👇 #LegalAwareness #CivilLaw #PropertyLaw #Injunction #CourtOrders #Advocacy #LawUpdate#ShriGanpatiJurists#ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️  Did You Know? Can a person legally sell pr…

⚖️ Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Supreme Court Clarifies: False Promise of Marriage ≠ Every Broken Promise In Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court drew an important distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise. 🔹 If from the very beginning there was no intention to marry, and the promise was used only to obtain consent for a physical relationship → it may amount to an offence. 🔹 However, if the promise was made genuinely and later could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances → every breach of promise cannot automatically become a criminal offence. 🔹 The Court further held that a prolonged consensual relationship, where both parties were aware of each other's marital status, cannot be presumed to be based solely on a false promise of marriage. 📌 Key Principle: For criminal liability, the promise of marriage must have a direct nexus with the consent for the physical relationship and not be influenced by other factors. 💬 “It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute under Section 376 IPC.” — Supreme Court #SupremeCourt #IndianLaw #CriminalLaw #Section376 #LegalUpdate #Lawyers #Judiciary #LegalAwareness #ShriGanpatiJurists#ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Supreme Court Clarifies: False Promise of M…

Lawyers Bathinda Bathinda Lawyers Advocates

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Important ruling by the Supreme Court in   …

Bathinda Lawyers

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️ Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Specific Performance Decrees In Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, th…

⚖️ Supreme Court on Summary Judgment in Commercial Suits In Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the scope and application of Order XIII-A CPC for summary judgment. 🚨 Key Takeaways: ✔️ Procedural compliance under Order XIII-A is mandatory ✔️ Summary judgment applies where: • Plaintiff has no real prospect of success, OR • Defendant has no real prospect of defence ✔️ Courts must ensure: • No unnecessary trial is conducted • No “mini trial” takes place • Only real issues (not fanciful defences) are considered ✔️ Courts can decide short questions of law without full trial ✔️ Evidence assessment includes: • Existing material • Evidence likely to be produced at trial ⚠️ Important: Summary judgment is an exceptional power — to be used only when full trial is not required. 📌 If justice demands: • Weighing evidence • Testing credibility • Drawing detailed inferences 👉 Then the matter must proceed to trial. 💡 Insight: This judgment reinforces efficiency in commercial litigation while safeguarding fairness. #SupremeCourt #CommercialLitigation #CivilProcedure #SummaryJudgment #Order13A#ShriGanpatiJuristAdvocacy#LawyersOfIndia #PunjabLaw #ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️ Supreme Court on Summary Judgment in Commercial Suits In Reliance Eminent Trading and Comme…

⚖️ Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Landmark Clarification on Limitation under IBC Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (SC) 📌 The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on limitation in insolvency proceedings: 🔹 Section 7 IBC Applications are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act — limitation starts from the date of default. 🔹 Mere admission of claim by IRP ❌ is NOT an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18, Limitation Act. 🔹 IRP’s role is administrative, not determinative — admission of claim ≠ extension of limitation. 🔹 ⛔ Time-barred claims cannot be revived by such admissions. 🔹 ✅ Acknowledgment must be within limitation period to extend it. 🔹 🛑 However, Section 60(6) IBC allows exclusion of limitation during moratorium. 📖 Key Takeaway: Creditors must act within limitation — procedural admissions won’t save stale claims. #IBC #SupremeCourt #InsolvencyLaw #LimitationAct #LegalUpdate #Advocacy#ShriGanpatiJuristAdvocacy#LawyersOfIndia #PunjabLaw #ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Bathinda Lawyers ⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️  Landmark Clarification on …

Load More
That is All