Tuesday’s legal developments touch money, family property and everyday safety. The Supreme Court held that a company’s balance sheet can keep an old debt alive for limitation purposes, ruled that a grandson has no birthright in property his father received in a partition of the grandfather’s estate, and pressed WhatsApp, the RBI and the police on digital arrest scams. The Allahabad High Court dealt with SARFAESI auctions of land shown as agricultural and with overcrowding in Uttar Pradesh jails, while the Kerala High Court told licensing authorities to act faster against drunk drivers.
Supreme Court: Balance Sheet Entries Can Restart the Limitation Clock
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta decided Yusuf v. Vigyapan Loke Delhi Advertising CGHS Ltd., a dispute over unpaid running bills from 2000 to 2003 for construction of a multi-storey building in Mayur Vihar, Delhi. The contractor’s summary suit for about Rs 11.16 lakh was filed only in 2014, and the Delhi High Court had rejected the plaint in 2024 as time-barred.
What the court held: Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a written acknowledgment of a subsisting liability starts a fresh limitation period. Entries in a debtor’s balance sheet can be such an acknowledgment, provided the balance sheet is read as a whole, including notes and any auditor’s qualifications. The acknowledgment need not follow a set format or name the creditor, as long as it shows the liability exists. Here, the 2004-05 balance sheet and bank reconciliation statements referred to cheques issued to the contractor, which was enough to link him to the society’s books. The High Court’s order was set aside and the suit was revived. The bench made clear that these entries do not prove the full amount claimed; that is for the trial.
What it means for you: Suppliers, contractors and lenders chasing old dues should not assume a claim is dead just because three years have passed since the last bill. If the debtor has kept showing the amount as outstanding in its audited accounts, limitation may have been extended each time. Businesses, on the other hand, should be aware that carrying unpaid liabilities forward in their balance sheets can keep creditors’ claims alive. Keep copies of the debtor’s annual reports and bank reconciliation records. Related help: Banking, Finance & Recovery and Civil Litigation.
Supreme Court: No Birthright for Grandson in Father’s Partition Share
In J Rajesh (Minor) v. M Kumaran (Dead) Through LRs, a bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sunita Agarwal considered a claim by a grandson born in 1994, after his grandfather had died without a will. The grandfather’s property passed to his Class I heirs, and a 1994 compromise decree in a partition suit allotted the land to the boy’s father, who sold it in 1997. The grandson then sued for a half share, calling it joint family property.
What the court held: Once a Hindu male’s property devolves under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and is partitioned among the heirs, each heir’s share becomes that heir’s own individual property. The heirs take as tenants in common, not as joint family coparceners. A son’s son therefore gets no right by birth in the share allotted to his father. Since the succession opened before the grandson was born, nothing devolved on him, and the appeal was dismissed.
What it means for you: Property that a father inherits from his own father under Section 8 and receives in a partition is, in general, his to sell, gift or bequeath without his children’s consent. Children cannot easily challenge such a sale by calling it ancestral property. Families planning a sale or a partition, and NRIs holding inherited land in India, should first find out whether the property is coparcenary property or self-acquired property in law, because the answer decides who must sign. Related help: Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law and Family Law.
Supreme Court Asks WhatsApp, RBI and Police for Answers on Digital Arrest Scams
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, is hearing the suo motu case In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents. In digital arrest scams, fraudsters pose as police or investigating agencies over video calls and frighten victims into transferring money. In its latest directions, the bench asked WhatsApp and other intermediaries what they will do to stop these scams. The case is next listed on 23 November 2026.
What changed: WhatsApp and other intermediaries must tell the Court the measures they propose to prevent digital arrest scams and related cybercrime, and share those proposals with the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). The RBI’s measures must require banks and other financial institutions to compensate victims, at least to the extent of the amount lost, where the institution failed in its due diligence. The RBI must also place a list of all authorised financial institutions before the Court. States and Union Territories must report the status of FIRs and investigations in these cases, and Directors General of Police must ensure compliance.
What it means for you: No genuine police officer, CBI or ED official will place you under arrest over a video call or ask you to transfer money to clear your name. If you receive such a call, disconnect and report it on the national cybercrime helpline 1930 or at cybercrime.gov.in as quickly as possible. If money was lost because your bank missed obvious warning signs, these directions strengthen your case for asking the bank to make good the loss. Related help: Cyber Law & Data Protection and Banking, Finance & Recovery.
Allahabad High Court: Revenue Entry Alone Does Not Shield Land From SARFAESI
Justice Irshad Ali of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition in Smt. Rama Chaurasia v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner and a co-owner had mortgaged a property to Canara Bank in 2003 as security for a credit facility of about Rs 30 lakh. After default, the bank auctioned it under the SARFAESI Act in 2008. The petitioner argued the land was agricultural, pointing to a Khasra entry and the absence of any order converting it to non-agricultural use under Section 143 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow agreed, but the Appellate Tribunal reversed it.
What the court held: Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act excludes security interests over agricultural land, but whether land is actually agricultural depends on its nature, its use and the evidence on record. Revenue entries and the absence of a Section 143 order are relevant but not conclusive. As the petitioner had not shown that the Appellate Tribunal’s findings were perverse, the High Court would not interfere under Article 226.
What it means for you: Borrowers in Uttar Pradesh who have pledged land described as agricultural in the revenue records cannot rely on that entry alone to stop a bank’s SARFAESI action. Evidence that the land is really being cultivated, such as crop records and proof of farming activity, will matter. Lenders and auction buyers, in turn, should check the actual use of the land and not just the paperwork. Related help: Banking, Finance & Recovery and Property, Real Estate & Waqf Law.
Allahabad High Court Seeks DG Prisons’ Affidavit as UP Jails Hold 80,326 Inmates
In the suo motu public interest case In Re: Overcrowding In Prisons, pending since 2018, a division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi examined an affidavit stating that Uttar Pradesh’s prisons, with a capacity of 76,162, are holding 80,326 prisoners. The affidavit did not separate undertrials from convicts or give gender-wise and age-wise figures, and gave no details of the six new prisons said to be under construction.
What the court directed: The Director General of UP Prison Administration and Reform Services must file a proper affidavit within one month, preferably in tabular form, setting out the present level of overcrowding and the steps being taken. The bench observed that short-term measures such as premature release and release on payment of fines may not be enough without more capacity. The matter is listed on 1 December.
What it means for you: Families of prisoners in Uttar Pradesh should keep track of whether their relative may qualify for premature release, release on payment of fine, or bail, since these routes are part of how the State is managing overcrowding. This follows the Supreme Court’s recent direction to the State to identify undertrials who were granted bail but are still in jail. If someone you know remains in custody despite a bail order, raise it promptly with the trial court or the District Legal Services Authority. Related help: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law and High Court & Appellate Litigation.
Kerala High Court: Licence Can Be Suspended for Drunk Driving Without Waiting for Conviction
While granting conditional bail in Geevarghese K.A. v. State of Kerala to a man accused of killing a motorcyclist by driving his car under the influence of alcohol, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court addressed the powers of licensing authorities in drunk driving cases.
What the court held: The Licensing Authority does not have to wait for the criminal case to end before acting under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It can form its own view on the material before it and disqualify the driver or revoke the licence in accordance with law. The court noted that these powers are used only sparingly, directed the investigating officer to send the accused’s licence to the authority, and asked the Transport Commissioner to ensure prompt action under Section 19(1) read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules wherever an accident appears to be caused by intoxication.
What it means for you: A drunk driving accident can cost you your licence well before any trial is over, and the same Central law applies across India, including in Uttar Pradesh. Drivers facing such action are entitled to a fair hearing before the authority and can challenge an unreasonable order. Victims’ families can ask the authorities to start licence action alongside the criminal case and the motor accident claim. Related help: Criminal Defense & Criminal Law.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you, you can arrange a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.