Mamta Sharma engagement report

Best tweets

• Aug 13, 20262981x their median

  Supreme Court in a maintenance/divorce case: Counsel for husband: He has appeared 600 times before courts because of various proceedings by the wife. Court indicates putting an end to the proceedings. Counsel for the wife: she is not agreeable… Court: how long will you keep harassing this man? He is remarried, has children. 60-70 lakhs have already been paid to you. Enough is enough! Nobody will utter a single word now.

  13K1.6K2131481.1M viewsView on X
• Aug 19, 20266.4x their median

  Kerala High Court Directs Action Against 1157 Advocates Practicing Without Certificates Of Practice #Kerala #Lawyers https://t.co/KdH1ZAqlWp

  255119.4K viewsView on X
• Sep 23, 20262.2x their median

  Sometimes, a brief exchange in Court says a lot about the discipline that litigation demands. Today, in Court No. 8, Item No. 4, the proxy counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra sought an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel was unavailable due to personal difficulty. The Court, however, took note of the fact that a counter affidavit, which had been directed to be filed earlier, was still not on record. The Court granted two weeks’ time to file the counter affidavit, subject to costs of ₹ 5000, the cost was imposed on the State for the delay in filing the counter affidavit despite an earlier direction of the Court. In day-to-day practice, adjournments are not uncommon. But once the Court has granted time and issued a direction for filing a pleading, compliance is expected from every litigant, including the State. It was a small courtroom moment, but an important reminder that court directions carry equal weight for all parties. And yes, it is not every day that one sees costs being imposed on the State for non-compliance with a direction to file its counter. #SupremeCourtOfIndia #CourtroomExperience #Litigation #LegalPractice #Advocacy #CourtCraft #IndianJudiciary #LawyersLife

  73101.1K viewsView on X
• Aug 19, 20261.8x their median

  From Temporary to Permanent Custody: A Significant Allahabad HC Order A recent custody matter before the Allahabad High Court presents an important precedent for matrimonial and child-custody litigators. In HABC No. 759 of 2026 (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition), the petitioner-father sought custody of his five-year-old daughter. By order dated 09.07.2026, the Court, after personally interacting with the child, found that she had been heavily tutored by her mother. The minor had made allegations of sexual abuse and assault against her father, but the Court observed that the manner in which she described those acts was beyond her age and logic and therefore found that the allegations appeared to have been tutored. The Court further observed that such tutoring could adversely affect the child’s mental health and future and that the child should not be used as a pawn in the matrimonial dispute. The Court consequently granted temporary custody to the father, while preserving the mother’s visitation and video-conferencing rights. When the matter came up again on 17.08.2026, the Court interacted with the child once more. The Court found her comfortable and secure with her father, noted her strong emotional bond with him and her unequivocal preference to continue residing with him. The Court therefore held that the welfare and best interests of the child would be served by continuing her custody with the father and made the custody permanent, while retaining the mother’s visitation and interaction rights. Two orders, one important development: temporary custody on 09.07.2026, permanent custody on 17.08.2026, based substantially on the Court’s own interaction with the child and its assessment of her welfare. #ChildCustody #FamilyLaw #MatrimonialDisputes #CustodyLitigation #BestInterestOfChild

  62101.0K viewsView on X
• Aug 15, 2026

  Plea of Alibi Need Not Always Wait for Trial In my experience, I have often seen advocates reserve the plea of alibi for the defence stage, after the prosecution has completed its evidence. Ordinarily, that is understandable. A plea of alibi is a question of evidence and, where its truth requires examination and cross-examination, it would ordinarily have to be tested at trial. But what happens when the alibi is not really in dispute? The Supreme Court, in Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., has drawn that important distinction. Where the accused relies upon official, unimpeached and impeccable documentary material which conclusively establishes that he was elsewhere when the alleged occurrence took place, such material cannot simply be ignored at the threshold on the ground that the plea of alibi must always be proved at trial. In the present case, the appellant's official BSF service records established his absence from the place of occurrence. The authenticity of the records was never questioned. The Supreme Court therefore held that insisting upon a full-fledged trial, despite such unimpeachable material, would amount to elevating procedural formalism over substantial justice. For me, the takeaway is quite clear: An alibi which requires proof may have to wait for trial. But an alibi supported by indubitable and unimpeachable material need not. The criminal process should not become an ordeal for an accused when the very record placed before the Court makes his presence at the alleged place of occurrence impossible to sustain. Rahul v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 2939 of 2026 2026 INSC 825 | Judgment dated 11 August 2026

  42101.1K viewsView on X
• Sep 12, 2026

  You Cannot Recover Money Through Court When the Payment Itself Was for an Illegal Purpose Can a person approach a civil court to recover money which, according to their own plaint, was paid for an illegal purpose? The Supreme Court has answered: No. In Poosa Sri Krishna & Ors. v. Gattu Kishan Rao & Anr., 2026 INSC 974, decided on 31 August 2026, the Supreme Court held that where the plaint itself reveals that the money was paid for an illegal and fraudulent purpose, the suit cannot be permitted to proceed. The plaint was accordingly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The underlying arrangement involved payments allegedly made for procuring bank loans, including amounts intended to satisfy bank officials in their personal capacity. The plaint also referred to the procurement and exchange of demonetised currency. The Court held that the object of the arrangement was forbidden by law, opposed to public policy and fraudulent, rendering the agreement void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court then applied the doctrine of in pari delicto—where parties are equally at fault in an illegal transaction, the Court will not come to the rescue of either party. In simple terms, the civil court cannot be used to recover money when the very foundation of the claim is an illegal transaction. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the principle laid down in G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew, (2004) 12 SCC 83: courts cannot lend their assistance to an illegal or unaccounted transaction; the loss must lie where it falls. An important aspect of the judgment is the Court's consideration of Sita Ram v. Radha Bai, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 27. The exception recognised there did not help the plaintiff because, in the present case, the illegal purpose had already been substantially carried into effect. The larger lesson is simple: A civil court is not a forum for enforcing the consequences of an illegal bargain. If the illegality is apparent from the plaint itself, the Court can stop the litigation at the threshold. #SupremeCourt #CPC #CivilLaw

  4110982 viewsView on X
• Sep 9, 2026

  Widow’s Family Pension Must Be Paid From the Date of Her Husband’s Death; Arrears Cannot Be Restricted to the Date of Filing the Application Before the Central Administrative Tribunal In Maya Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 959, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that family pension is a valuable right and not a bounty. Relying on S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway & Anr., (2003) 1 SCC 184, the Court held that a widow’s entitlement to family pension accrues from the date it becomes due—i.e., the date of her husband’s death—and cannot, in the facts of the case, be curtailed merely because she approached the legal forum at a later stage. The Court distinguished the principle concerning restriction of arrears in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, and ultimately directed payment of the entire arrears from 12.11.2000 with 6% interest per annum.

  5100777 viewsView on X
• Sep 28, 2026

  The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 28 September 2026, has recommended the elevation of three High Court Chief Justices as Judges of the Supreme Court of India: • Justice Sunita Agarwal, Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court • Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice, Delhi High Court • Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana

  4100974 viewsView on X
• Aug 20, 2026

  New adjournment excuse… Adjournment granted 😂😂 https://t.co/GwybYYNYxB

  40101.4K viewsView on X
• Aug 16, 2026

  Once Notarised, Don’t Touch the Pleading: Bombay High Court’s ₹1.5 Lakh Warning A small “correction” can become a very serious problem. For advocates and litigants, this recent order of the Bombay High Court carries an important practical lesson: Once a pleading has been notarised and filed, do not replace a page or alter the pleading on your own. If a correction is required, follow the proper procedure and seek permission through a separate application, wherever required. The correction should be duly permitted and appropriately endorsed on the record. In Villayati Ram Mittal v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer, Commercial Suit No. 173 of 2019 with Interim Application (L) No. 20144 of 2026, Justice Gauri Godse dealt with a discrepancy in the prayer clause of the plaint. The Court found that the copy of the plaint served upon the defendants contained a replaced page with a different prayer clause, although the original court record contained a different page. The explanation was that corrections were being made for removal of office objections and that the plaintiff’s staff had misunderstood the instructions and retyped the page. But the Court made the position very clear: Once the oath is administered and the Notary affixes the stamp, even the Notary is not permitted to replace any page. Replacing a page would amount to tampering with the original document. Importantly, the Court also held that even though the original plaint in the court record had not been replaced, replacing the corresponding page in the photocopy served upon the defendants, and representing it as the true copy of the plaint filed in Court, amounted to tampering with the pleadings served upon the defendants. In the present case, the Court described the conduct of the plaintiff, advocate on record and Notary as “shocking and unacceptable” and held that the matter could not be closed merely by accepting their apologies. The consequence? ₹50,000 costs on the plaintiff. ₹50,000 costs on the advocate on record. ₹50,000 costs on the Notary. That is ₹1.50 lakh in costs, collectively. The Court also directed that the order be forwarded to the Notary Cell, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, for corrective measures. A practical reminder for every litigation office: Draft carefully. Verify carefully. Notarise carefully. File carefully. And once filed, do not “fix” the document yourself. The habit of making informal changes to pleadings can land both the litigant and the advocate in serious trouble. A correction that takes five minutes to explain may otherwise result in months of explanation before the Court, an adverse observation, professional consequences and exemplary cost.. #LitigationPractice #ProfessionalEthics #Advocates #CivilProcedure #BombayHighCourt

  41001.3K viewsView on X

Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.

Keep going