In this 13th episode of "Legal Snippet – Law Simplified," we delve into Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which addresses the consequences when a complainant fails to appear in court or passes away during proceedings. We'll explore the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and practical implications of this provision, highlighting how it balances judicial efficiency with the rights of the accused. Whether you're a legal professional, student, or someone interested in understanding the intricacies of criminal procedure, this episode offers valuable insights into the application and nuances of Section 256 CrPC.

Ever worried about missing a loan payment? You're not alone. Understanding what happens when a loan account, overdraft, or cash credit facility falls into difficulty, specifically becoming a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), is crucial for many borrowers. This episode cuts through the complexity to explain exactly what an NPA is, how banks classify them, and what rights you have in this challenging situation.

We'll explore the regulatory framework that defines an NPA, like interest or principal being overdue for more than 90 days for a term loan, or an overdraft/cash credit account remaining "out of order". Learn about the early warning signs, known as Special Mention Accounts (SMA), which indicate incipient stress before an account becomes an NPA.

Discover that asset classification is primarily based on the record of recovery. While banks should not classify an account as NPA merely due to temporary deficiencies, issues like old stock statements for working capital or unreviewed/unrenewed credit limits can trigger classification. An important point to note is that if a borrower has multiple facilities with a bank, generally all facilities are treated as NPA if one becomes non-performing.

While NPA classification itself doesn't carry the same severe civil and penal consequences as being classified a 'wilful defaulter' or facing 'fraud' charges (which can include being barred from institutional finance or criminal proceedings), it does have significant impacts, including the potential for banks to take measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, such as taking possession or selling mortgaged property.

The question of whether borrowers are entitled to a prior hearing before NPA classification has seen conflicting judgments from various High Courts. Although some courts have held that borrowers should be informed and given an opportunity to represent, others have concluded that no prior hearing is required before NPA classification. The Supreme Court has mandated prior hearings for fraud classification due to serious consequences, but the civil consequences of standard NPA classification are argued to be less drastic. Crucially, the SARFAESI Act does provide borrowers with safeguards and the ability to raise objections against NPA classification under Sections 13(3-A) and 17.

Furthermore, banks are encouraged to provide consumer education to borrowers about the concepts of overdue, SMA, and NPA classification.

Tune in to understand these complex banking norms, how NPA classification works, and the rights and safeguards available to borrowers under the existing legal and regulatory framework.

What happens when boardroom battles threaten a company’s future? In this episode, we dive into the NCLT’s crucial ruling on the Escientia-Deccan dispute, where misuse of power, financial missteps, and minority shareholder oppression took center stage. From nullifying top-level appointments to enforcing buy-outs, we explain how the tribunal protected fairness and upheld corporate governance—making company law clear and relatable.

Who can claim compensation when a loved one dies in a road accident? In this episode, we explore the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling in Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Khushwah, where it broadened the definition of "legal representative" to ensure dependents like parents and siblings aren’t left out. We break down how this judgment brings compassion and fairness to motor accident claims—and why it matters to every Indian family.

What happens if you drive into a FASTag lane without a FASTag? Is paying double fair? In this episode, we unpack the Bombay High Court's ruling that backs the government's push for FASTag tolls. We explore why the policy was challenged, how the court weighed public inconvenience against smoother traffic, and what it means for your rights as a commuter. No legal jargon—just a clear look at the law behind your next highway ride.

Ever been told you have to pay that service charge at a restaurant? In this episode, we decode the Delhi High Court's big ruling on mandatory service charges and what it means for your next meal out. Are restaurants allowed to add it? Can you say no? We unpack the legal fight between restaurant groups and the consumer watchdog, and explain how the law protects your right to choose—without legal jargon and with real-world impact.

When a bill is passed by an elected state government, should a Governor be allowed to sit on it for months—or even years? In this episode, we break down the Supreme Court’s powerful 2025 judgment on a long-standing deadlock between the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor. What does this mean for democracy, state rights, and how your laws get made (or stalled)? Tune in for a clear and engaging look at India’s federal fabric, constitutional checks, and the politics of lawmaking.

In this hard-hitting episode, we dive into the Supreme Court’s landmark April 2025 judgment on the West Bengal Teacher Recruitment Scam, where it upheld the annulment of the entire 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). With findings of mass manipulation of OMR sheets, fraudulent appointments, and cover-ups, the Court held that the process was “vitiated and tainted beyond resolution.”

But this isn’t just a story of fraud—it's also a legal balancing act. What happens when thousands of honest candidates are swept up in systemic wrongdoing? Should every appointment be scrapped when some are guilty? Or can justice distinguish between the tainted and the innocent?

We unpack how the Supreme Court wrestled with these questions by invoking critical precedents like Inderpreet Singh Kahlon, outlining the three conditions under which an entire recruitment process can legally be struck down. We also explore how the Court made nuanced exceptions—like allowing age-relaxation and re-entry for untainted candidates—to preserve fairness without rewarding fraud.

Tune in as we break down the constitutional stakes, public trust in institutions, and how Indian courts draw the line when corruption collides with due process.