Courts across India deliver rulings every day, and many of them affect ordinary people: anyone who has issued a cheque, faced a criminal case, or gone through a custody dispute. This digest picks a few recent developments and explains them in plain English. It is written for readers in Patiala and across Punjab, not just for lawyers.
Supreme Court: A cheque bounce notice sent to the right address counts as served
In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case involving a dishonoured cheque of Rs 3 lakh, the legal notice was sent by registered post to the drawer’s correct address but was received by his mother. The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that once a notice goes to the correct address, it is presumed to be served. It is then up to the person who issued the cheque to show that the address was wrong or that he never knew of the notice. In this case he did not dispute the address and had used it in later proceedings. Source: LiveLaw.
Why it matters: If you receive a demand notice after a cheque bounces, ignoring it because someone else in the household signed for it is risky. Our page on cheque bounce matters explains the steps that follow.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Long custody does not automatically mean bail in large NDPS cases
A man accused of possessing about 110 kg of ganja had spent roughly 11 months in custody and argued that his trial was moving slowly. Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused regular bail. The court said that where the quantity is commercial, the strict conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply, and the right to a speedy trial cannot, on delay alone, override them. Source: LiveLaw, as reported on 2 October 2026.
Why it matters: Bail rules are much tighter in drug cases involving commercial quantities, and delay by itself may not be enough. If you or a family member are dealing with such a case, you can read about bail and anticipatory bail.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A father’s finances cannot replace a young child’s need for the mother
A mother approached the High Court after her four-year-old son was allegedly taken by the father’s family. The Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur upheld an order giving the mother custody. The court noted that under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, a child under five is ordinarily to be with the mother, and that the father being financially stronger does not replace a mother’s care unless she is shown to be unfit. Source: LiveLaw, as reported on 2 October 2026.
Why it matters: In custody disputes involving young children, courts look at the child’s welfare rather than which parent earns more. More on this is on our divorce and family law page.
Supreme Court: No fast-track hearing just because the petitioner is a judicial officer
A former District Judge asked the Supreme Court to push for an early hearing of his dismissal case pending in the Allahabad High Court. A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana declined, saying every litigant has an equal right to access justice and that special treatment based on office would be unfair to others waiting for their turn. The petitioner was told he could ask the High Court itself for an early hearing. Source: LiveLaw.
Why it matters: It is a reminder that court listing is meant to be equal for everyone, whatever their position.
If you have questions about a similar issue, you are welcome to contact our office.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.