Generated by All in One SEO v4.9.0, this is an llms.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site.

# The Indian Lawyer

Reliable Responsible Resourceful

## Sitemaps

- [XML Sitemap](https://theindianlawyer.in/sitemap.xml): Contains all public & indexable URLs for this website.

## Posts

- [Blog](https://theindianlawyer.in/blog/)
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS GOVERNMENT CAN REVISE ROYALTY RATE IN MINING LEASES DESPITE LEASE DEED BEING SILENT ON ROYALTY REVISION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-government-can-revise-royalty-rate-in-mining-leases-despite-lease-deed-being-silent-on-royalty-revision/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined a case concerning the power of the State Government to enhance royalty and dead rent rates during the active period of a mining lease, even when the lease deed itself is silent on the matter, namely The State of Haryana & Ors. v. M/s Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ARTICLE 227 CAN NOT BE ORDINARILY INVOKED TO CHALLENGE REJECTION OF S.16 APPLICATION BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-article-227-can-not-be-ordinarily-invoked-to-challenge-rejection-of-s-16-application-by-arbitral-tribunal/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined a case concerning the extent of a High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when dealing with an Arbitral Tribunal's rejection of a jurisdictional challenge, namely Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 701. This decision was
- [SUPREME COURT REVIVES POCSO CASE AGAINST SCHOOL HEADMISTRESS FOR NOT REPORTING CHILD SEX ABUSE, SAYS DOING OWN VERIFICATION NO EXCUSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-revives-pocso-case-against-school-headmistress-for-not-reporting-child-sex-abuse-says-doing-own-verification-no-excuse-2/) - The Supreme Court, in the case of AAA Vs. Linda Sema & Ors. (SLP [Criminal] No. 4772 of 2024) has restored criminal proceedings against a school headmistress in Arunachal Pradesh who, on receiving an eight-year-old student’s Complaint of sexual assault, chose to examine the child herself if rather than inform the police. A Bench of
- [SUPREME COURT: ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S REJECTION OF SECTION 16 OBJECTION CANNOT BE CHALLENGED UNDER ARTICLE 227, REMEDY LIES UNDER SECTION 34 POST-AWARD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-arbitral-tribunals-rejection-of-section-16-objection-cannot-be-challenged-under-article-227-remedy-lies-under-section-34-post-award/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant ruling reinforcing the doctrine of minimal judicial interference in arbitration, the Supreme Court, in the case of Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1330 has held that a High Court cannot entertain a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an Arbitral
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFRIMS PUBLIC INTEREST REMAINS A PRIORITY WHEN THE STATE IS IN THE PROCESS OF AQCUISITION OF A PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffrims-public-interest-remains-a-priority-when-the-state-is-in-the-process-of-aqcuisition-of-a-property/) - INTRODUCTION On 11 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant Judgment in Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 682. The Judgment was authored by Justice Dipankar Datta. The case arose from the acquisition of land for the proposed Jaipur Metro Rail Project and centred
- [SCOPE AND DUTY OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 31 CPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/scope-and-duty-of-the-first-appellate-court-under-order-xli-rule-31-cpc/) - INTRODUCTION In Lakshmi v. Gopi & Ors., 2026 INSC 709 (decided on 15 July 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, although the dispute originated from the validity of a registered Will, the Supreme Court shifted its focus to a broader procedural issue the obligation of Appellate
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS PROPERTY CONVEYED IN SALE DEED CANNOT BE CHANGED THROUGH RECTIFICATION DEED WITHOUT ORIGINAL TRANSFEROR’S CONSENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-property-conveyed-in-sale-deed-cannot-be-changed-through-rectification-deed-without-original-transferors-consent/) - INTRODUCTION In Venkatesha and Anr. v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (decided on 14 July 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Dipankar Datta and Vipul M. Pancholi, the Supreme Court reiterated that a Rectification Deed cannot be used as a tool to substitute one property for another, especially without the
- [THE “RIGHT TO PRIVACY” SHIELDS NO SECRET: THE SHIFTING TIDES OF MATRIMONIAL LAW IN INDIA](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-right-to-privacy-shields-no-secret-the-shifting-tides-of-matrimonial-law-in-india/) - For years, the phrase "Right to Privacy" under Article 21 has been wielded as an absolute shield in matrimonial litigation. Husbands and wives routinely invoked it to block the production of crucial electronic records, hotel bookings or call histories. But the legal landscape has fundamentally shifted. A line has been drawn: the right to privacy
- [Supreme Court Revives POCSO Case Against School Headmistress for Not Reporting Child Sex Abuse, Says Doing Own Verification No Excuse](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-revives-pocso-case-against-school-headmistress-for-not-reporting-child-sex-abuse-says-doing-own-verification-no-excuse/) - AAA VERSUS LINDA SEMA & ORS SLP Criminal No. 4772 of 2024 The Supreme Court has restored criminal proceedings against a school headmistress in Arunachal Pradesh who, on receiving an eight-year-old student’s complaint of sexual assault, chose to examine the child herself if rather than inform the police. A bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and
- [Are There Various Legal Rules in Divorce Among Different Countries?](https://theindianlawyer.in/are-there-various-legal-rules-in-divorce-among-different-countries/) - Introduction Divorce is a legal process that formally ends a marriage, but the way that process works can vary significantly from one country to another. While many people assume divorce laws are generally the same worldwide, each nation has developed its own legal framework based on cultural values, religious influences, historical traditions, and public policy
- [SUPREME COURT REINFORCE STRICT TIMELINES FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN COMMERCIAL SUITS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reinforce-strict-timelines-for-additional-documents-in-commercial-suits/) - INTRODUCTION In M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt.Ltd. v. M/S. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. (decided on 09 July 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, addressed the scope of filing additional documents after the commencement of trial in commercial suits and emphasized that commercial litigation cannot be
- [‘MERE NON-COMMUNICATION WITH WIFE NOT CRUELTY’: SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE HUSBAND’S S.498A CONVICTION OVER WIFE’S SUICIDE](https://theindianlawyer.in/mere-non-communication-with-wife-not-cruelty-supreme-court-sets-aside-husbands-s-498a-conviction-over-wifes-suicide/) - INTRODUCTION In the significant ruling of Jayesh Kanna v The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order (West) Etc Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382 - 2383 Of 2026, involving the scope of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere non-communication by a husband with his wife for
- [PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: MERE PRESENCE OF OFFICER WHEN SUPERIOR ACCEPTED BRIBE NOT ENOUGH TO INFER CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY](https://theindianlawyer.in/prevention-of-corruption-act-mere-presence-of-officer-when-superior-accepted-bribe-not-enough-to-infer-criminal-conspiracy/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has reaffirmed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus A.K Gaba Etc Criminal Appeal No(S). 3383-3385 Of 2025, a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An officer’s mere presence when a superior demands or accepts a bribe does not, by itself, establish criminal
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ATTESTATION DOES NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF A WILL WHEN THERE ARE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-attestation-does-not-prove-genuineness-of-a-will-when-there-are-suspicious-circumstances/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently tackled a fascinating question regarding the true value of a registered Will when its surrounding circumstances scream of foul play. In Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors., 2026 INSC 669, decided on July 6, 2026, a two-judge Bench comprising Hon'ble Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Viswanathan
- [STATUTORY AMALGAMATION DOES NOT DEFEAT A LANDLORD’S RIGHTS UNDER THE RENT ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/statutory-amalgamation-does-not-defeat-a-landlords-rights-under-the-rent-act/) - INTRODUCTION On 9 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important Judgment in British Motor Car Company (1939) Ltd. v. M/s Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. (since merged with Punjab National Bank) & Anr., 2026 INSC 671. The Judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The decision settles an
- [THE SUPREME COURT REDEFINES MAGISTRATE’S ROLE IN SESSION TRIABLE COMPLAINT CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-supreme-court-redefines-magistrates-role-in-session-triable-complaint-case/) - INTRODUCTION In Neeraj Gupta v. Pradeep Kumar Bansal & Ors., 2026 INSC 660, decided on 1 July 2026, by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a Magistrate is required to record the prosecution evidence under Section 244 (Evidence of Prosecution) of
- [COURTS MUST ORDER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF CHILD ONLY IF NECESSARY; MINIMUM INTRUSION SHOULD BE NORM](https://theindianlawyer.in/courts-must-order-psychological-assessment-of-child-only-if-necessary-minimum-intrusion-should-be-norm/) - Introduction In the case of Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora (2026 INSC 638), decided by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on 11 June 2026, at the intersection of child custody, the POCSO Act 2012 and child psychology, the Supreme Court has laid down 19 comprehensive guidelines governing court-directed psychological evaluations of
- [REMISSION POLICY ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 161 OVERRIDES STATUTORY POLICY FRAMED UNDER CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/remission-policy-issued-under-article-161-overrides-statutory-policy-framed-under-crpc/) - Introduction In a significant pronouncement made in the case of Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v. State of Haryana, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9920 of 2026, decided on 1st July 2026, the Court clarified the interplay between constitutional clemency powers and statutory remission schemes. The Supreme Court has held that a remission policy issued
- [BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND DIGITAL DECEPTION: THE JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO AI-GENERATED POLITICAL DEEPFAKES](https://theindianlawyer.in/between-free-speech-and-digital-deception-the-judicial-response-to-ai-generated-political-deepfakes/) - INTRODUCTION On 1 July 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered an important Judgment in Raghav Chadha v. Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors., CS(OS) 466/2026, dealing with the growing misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in creating deepfakes and defamatory political content. The Judgment was delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad. The case presented the Court with
- [REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT DOESN’T APPLY TO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/representation-of-people-act-doesnt-apply-to-municipal-elections/) - INTRODUCTION On July 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of India made an important ruling in the case of Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026 INSC 665). This decision clarified the limits of electoral laws and procedural errors in criminal proceedings. Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discussed the Representation of
- [MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM – LOSS SUFFERED BY PARENTS CANNOT BE ASSESSED WITH ARITHMETICAL PRECISION](https://theindianlawyer.in/motor-accident-claim-loss-suffered-by-parents-cannot-be-assessed-with-arithmetical-precision/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India made a big decision on June 23, 2026, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram & Others 2026 INSC 653. This case was about how to calculate compensation for people who are hurt in car accidents and how to figure out the value of
- [WHEN TECHNOLOGY CROSSES THE LINE: SAFEGUARDING THE SANCTITY OF JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-technology-crosses-the-line-safeguarding-the-sanctity-of-judicial-decision-making/) - INTRODUCTION On 2 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant Judgment in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2026 INSC 668, addressing the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial proceedings. The Judgment was delivered by Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. Although the Appeal
- [DEAR READERS WE ARE NOT UPLOADING ANY ARTICLES THIS WEEK DUE TO OUR SUMMER HOLIDAYS](https://theindianlawyer.in/dear-readers-we-are-not-uploading-any-articles-this-week-due-to-our-summer-holidays/)
- [Notice to Our Readers](https://theindianlawyer.in/notice-to-our-readers/) - Office Closure on Account of Summer Holidays Dear Readers, Please be informed that our office shall remain closed on 27 June 2026 (Saturday) on account of Summer Holidays. Accordingly, no articles, legal updates, blogs or other publications will be uploaded on our website on that date. Regular publication of articles and updates will resume thereafter.
- [THE MISSING WORD THAT CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND THE BOUNDARIES OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-missing-word-that-changed-the-outcome-of-compassionate-appointment-and-the-boundaries-of-judicial-interpretation/) - INTRODUCTION In Atul Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2026 INSC 640, decided on 11 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongeikapam Kotiswar Singh, examined the scope of Rule 23(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019. The Supreme Court upheld the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS CURABLE IRREGULARITY IN FINAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS CANNOT INVALIDATE ENTIRE RECRUITMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-curable-irregularity-in-final-appointment-process-cannot-invalidate-entire-recruitment/) - INTRODUCTION On June 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Gaurav Mehla & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026 INSC 641), clarifying the limits of procedural compliance in public and semi-public employment. Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh addressed the crucial balance between administrative
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS LOKAYUKTA SPECIAL POLICE NOT ‘INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY ORGANISATION’ EXEMPT FROM RTI ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-lokayukta-special-police-not-intelligence-security-organisation-exempt-from-rti-act/) - INTRODUCTION On June 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling in the case of Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra and others 2026 INSC 644. Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar laid down clear limits on who qualifies for an exemption under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
- [WHEN THE THIRD JUDGE SPEAKS AND RECONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF SECTION 392 OF THE CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-the-third-judge-speaks-and-reconsidering-the-scope-of-section-392-of-the-crpc/) - INTRODUCTION In Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. with State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Rastogi & Ors., 2026 INSC 632, decided on 09 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the Supreme Court found that the existing, precedent in
- [CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA BARS GROUNDS OMITTED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE: SUPREME COURT SUMMARISES PRINCIPLES Makardhwaj Ram V. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Th. Lrs. & Anr CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2950 OF 2011 SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/constructive-res-judicata-bars-grounds-omitted-due-to-negligence-supreme-court-summarises-principles-makardhwaj-ram-v-jagdish-rai-dead-th-lrs-anr-civil-appeal-no-2950-of-2011-supreme-c/) - Introduction In a significant ruling consolidating the law on constructive res judicata, the Supreme Court has held that while the doctrine bars grounds omitted even due to negligence, its application is not mechanical, it must be sensitive to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Division Bench set aside a Chhattisgarh High Court order
- [Lawyer writes to Delhi High Court Chief Justice seeking Suo Moto cognizance of Malviya Nagar Fire tragedy](https://theindianlawyer.in/lawyer-writes-to-delhi-high-court-chief-justice-seeking-suo-moto-cognizance-of-malviya-nagar-fire-tragedy/) - Introduction In the aftermath of a devastating fire tragedy in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, Advocate Bhavishya Shakya of the Supreme Court of India has addressed an open letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, urging the Court to exercise suo moto jurisdiction. The letter, dated 5th June 2026, calls for judicial
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE NEED FOR A FRESH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE IMPOSING MAJOR PENALTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-need-for-a-fresh-show-cause-notice-before-imposing-major-penalties/) - INTRODUCTION In Surekha Domaji Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2026 INSC 639, decided on 16 June 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through a Judgment authored by Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, dealt with an important issue relating to disciplinary proceedings and procedural fairness. While the case involved several service law issues, the central question
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ELEPHANT CARETAKER GUILTY OF CONTEMPT: A REMINDER THAT COURT UNDERTAKINGS ARE NOT MERE FORMALITIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-elephant-caretaker-guilty-of-contempt-a-reminder-that-court-undertakings-are-not-mere-formalities/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court's recent decision in Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Ors. (2026 INSC 631) On 09.06.2026 may appear at first glance to be a routine contempt matter. However, a closer reading shows that the Judgment deals with two important issues. First, the binding nature of undertakings given before a court. Second, the responsibility
- [Kerala High Court Upholds Award to Unmarried Sister on the Ground Of “Loss Of Dependency”](https://theindianlawyer.in/kerala-high-court-upholds-award-to-unmarried-sister-on-the-ground-of-loss-of-dependency/) - Introduction In a significant ruling titled The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Devaki and Ors. (2026) for motor accident compensation jurisprudence, the Kerela High Court has reaffirmed that the right to claim compensation under the pretext “loss of dependency” is not constricted to spouses, parents or minor children of the deceased. A sibling is
- [Sabarimala Ashtabhishekam Case: Kerala High Court Casts a Decade-Long Net Over Temple Finances](https://theindianlawyer.in/sabarimala-ashtabhishekam-case-kerala-high-court-casts-a-decade-long-net-over-temple-finances/) - Introduction Sabarimala, one of the largest Hindu pilgrimage centres in the world, draws millions of devotees each year. Its administration falls under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), a statutory body charged with managing temples and their revenues. In recent months, the TDB has found itself under intense judicial scrutiny over the integrity of its financial
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES CAN BE INVOKED FOR SAME CAUSE PROVIDED THERE IS NO UNREASONABLE TIME GAP](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-civil-and-criminal-remedies-can-be-invoked-for-same-cause-provided-there-is-no-unreasonable-time-gap/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined a case concerning a 23-year delay in starting criminal proceedings after a long-standing civil dispute, namely Nazibul Rahim Khan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2026 INSC 619. This decision was made on March 25, 2026. The Court, consisting of Hon’ble Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS PANCH WITNESS TURNING HOSTILE IS NOT FATAL IF RECOVERY PROVED BY THE OTHER EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-panch-witness-turning-hostile-is-not-fatal-if-recovery-proved-by-the-other-evidence/) - INTRODUCTION On May 25, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in Upendra Khare v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 INSC 538 dealing with the reliability of evidence when independent witnesses back out. The Hon’ble Justices Prasanna B. Varale and Pankaj Mithal, who make up the Bench, said that testimony
- [THE SUPREME COURT ON CHILD WELFARE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-supreme-court-on-child-welfare-and-psychological-safety/) - INTRODUCTION In XXXX v. XXXX, 2026 INSC 638, decided on 11 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India Division Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, examined the slight intersection between child custody disputes, visitation rights and allegations of sexual abuse under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 (POSCO
- [SUPREME COURT RECOGNISES THE INVISIBLE LABOUR OF HOMEMAKERS, INTRODUCES ₹30,000 UNDER ‘LOSS OF DOMESTIC CARE’](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-recognises-the-invisible-labour-of-homemakers-introduces-₹30000-under-loss-of-domestic-care/) - INTRODUCTION In Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors., decided on 11 June 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a Judgment that goes beyond the usual exercise of calculating compensation in a motor accident claim. The Court used the opportunity to address a larger issue that has existed for decades: how should
- [SUPREME COURT SUMMARISES LAW ON APPROVER’S TESTIMONY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-summarises-law-on-approvers-testimony/) - INTRODUCTION The Apex Court’s recently passed Judgement in the case of Gopi Chand @ Pappu v. State (NCT of Delhi) on 29.05.2026 is a decision that brings clarity to the domain criminal jurisprudence, which is at times misunderstood. The matter brought before the Hon’ble Court was whether the testimony of an approver could be trusted
- [SUPREME COURT URGES TO BRING ‘ROMEO-JULIET’ CLAUSE IN POCSO ACT TO SHIELD CONSENSUAL ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIPS FROM PROSECUTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-urges-to-bring-romeo-juliet-clause-in-pocso-act-to-shield-consensual-adolescent-relationships-from-prosecution/) - INTRODUCTION Adolescence is a budding period in the life of a human being, marked by profound physical, emotional and psychological developments that are crucial for growth and education, ultimately shaping a well-rounded individual. This formative stage also encompasses experiences such as young love and early sexual awareness, which are natural aspects of adolescent development. In
- [ROYALTY HIKE UNDER MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 OVERRIDES CONTRACTUAL TERMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/royalty-hike-under-mines-and-minerals-development-and-regulation-act-1957-overrides-contractual-terms/) - Introduction The Apex Court in the case of Director of Mines and Geology v. M/s BMM Ispat Ltd. & Anr. 2026 INSC 627, decided on June 4, 2026, by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, held that royalty on minerals governed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 will be
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES WELFARE OF A CHILD IS MANDATORY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-welfare-of-a-child-is-mandatory/) - INTRODUCTION In Shephali Chakrabotry v. The State of West Bengal, 2026 INSC 621, decided on 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court examined the meaning and purpose of Section 8 (Power of Natural Guardian) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION IN KIDNAPPING CASE STATING LACK OF CDR FROM RURAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE IN 2003 IS NOT MATERIAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-kidnapping-case-stating-lack-of-cdr-from-rural-telephone-exchange-in-2003-is-not-material/) - INTRODUCTION In the case of Harjindra Singh Etc. v. The State of U.P. (2026 INSC 569), decided on 27th May, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, dealt with the requirements of evidence needed to prove kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A of the Indian Penal
- [SUPREME COURT SEEKS ACTION AGAINST ERRANT OFFICERS FOR LOSS OF RECORDS IN 19 YEAR GUJARAT POLICE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-seeks-action-against-errant-officers-for-loss-of-records-in-19-year-gujarat-police-case/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reviewed a case regarding a prolonged two-decade delay in the investigation of a Criminal Complaint in Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri & Ors. v. Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri & Ors, 2026 INSC 626, which was decided on June 4, 2026. The Apex Court, through Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George
- [FAIR TRIAL REMAINS PARAMOUNT, EVEN IN OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/fair-trial-remains-paramount-even-in-official-secrets-act-cases/) - In a recent Judgment, V.K. Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2026 INSC 614, the Supreme Court dealt with an important issue concerning the rights of an accused person facing prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The Judgment examines the balance between two competing concerns; national security on one hand and the
- [TWISHA SHARMA CASE: WHY THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT CANCELLED THE MOTHER-IN-LAW’S ANTICIPATORY BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/twisha-sharma-case-why-the-madhya-pradesh-high-court-cancelled-the-mother-in-laws-anticipatory-bail/) - INTRODUCTION The recent Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Twisha Sharma case has attracted significant public attention. The case relates to the death of a 33-year-old woman within a few months of her marriage and allegations of dowry harassment, forced abortion and cruelty by her husband and in-laws. While the merits of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ONCE COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS APPROVES RESOLUTION PLAN, SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION APPLICANT CANNOT NEGOTIATE FURTHER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-once-committee-of-creditors-approves-resolution-plan-successful-resolution-applicant-cannot-negotiate-further/) - INTRODUCTION In Sanjay Dave v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2026 INSC 580), decided on 27th May, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, addressed the binding nature of a Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT MARRIAGE DOES NOT ECLIPSE A WIVES INDIVIDUALITY: CRUELTY AND DESERTION ALLEGATIONS FINDING AGAINST DENTIST WIFE EXPUNGED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-marriage-does-not-eclipse-a-wives-individuality-cruelty-and-desertion-allegations-finding-against-dentist-wife-expunged/) - INTRODUCTION In the case of Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, 2026 INSC 475, decided on 12 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India considered whether a Wife's decision to pursue her professional career and create a stable environment for her child's health could be considered as cruelty or desertion. The
- [FROM THRONE TO TITLE: THE END OF PRIMOGENITURE OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY IN FORMER PRINCELY STATES](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-throne-to-title-the-end-of-primogeniture-over-private-property-in-former-princely-states/) - INTRODUCTION In Tikka Shatrujit Singh & Ors. v. Sukjit Singh & Anr., 2026 INSC 571, decided on 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India Bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, the Supreme Court examined whether the customary rule of male-lineal primogeniture, traditionally governing succession to princely thrones, continued to regulate succession
- [SUPREME COURT ON STRAY DOGS: A WELCOME BALANCE BETWEEN ANIMAL WELFARE AND PUBLIC SAFETY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-on-stray-dogs-a-welcome-balance-between-animal-welfare-and-public-safety/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court's recent Judgment in In Re: "City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price" has reignited the debate on stray dog management in India. The issue has become increasingly important in light of the growing number of dog-bite incidents reported from schools, hospitals, residential areas, railway stations and other public places. At the
- [SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 311 CRPC: RECALL OF WITNESSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-on-section-311-crpc-recall-of-witnesses-cannot-be-allowed-as-a-matter-of-routine/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court's recent Judgment in State of Tripura v. Panna Ahmed Criminal Appeal No. 2848 of 2026 is an important reminder that while courts have wide powers under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses, those powers cannot be used casually or to prolong criminal trials unnecessarily. In my view, the Judgment strikes a
- [HOSTILE WITNESSES AND BROKEN PROSECUTION STORIES: A SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS](https://theindianlawyer.in/hostile-witnesses-and-broken-prosecution-stories-a-supreme-court-analysis/) - Introduction In Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana, 2026 INSC 486, decided on 13 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant in a murder case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes
- [PREMATURE RELEASE AND REMISSION JURISPRUDENCE: A LANDMARK RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/premature-release-and-remission-jurisprudence-a-landmark-ruling-by-the-supreme-court/) - INTRODUCTION In Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2026 INSC 490, decided on 15 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, examined whether the Union Government could reject the premature release of a life convict through a non-speaking and arbitrary order. The decision highlights
- [Supreme Court holds Students Transferred to Private Colleges After Original Institution Lost Recognition Cannot Claim Government Fees](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-students-transferred-to-private-colleges-after-original-institution-lost-recognition-cannot-claim-government-fees/) - Introduction In Soumya Ranjan Panda & Ors. v. Subhalaxmi Dash & Ors., 2026 INSC 488, decided on 14 May 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, clarified a crucial aspect of financial liability and equitable distribution regarding the relocation of medical students from a de-recognized private institution.
- [Supreme Court holds VAT Not Applicable to Reliance’s Supply of Gas from KG Basin to UP which is an Inter-State Sale](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-vat-not-applicable-to-reliances-supply-of-gas-from-kg-basin-to-up-which-is-an-inter-state-sale/) - Introduction In State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors., 2026 INSC 491, decided on 15 May 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, clarified a crucial aspect of state taxation powers regarding the inter-State movement of natural gas under Section
- [WHEN BAIL BECOMES HUMILIATION: SUPREME COURT CONDEMNS ‘CASTE-COLOURED’ CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-bail-becomes-humiliation-supreme-court-condemns-caste-coloured-conditions-imposed-on-accused/) - INTRODUCTION In In Re: Condition Being Imposed While Granting Bail by High Court of Orissa and District Courts in the State of Odisha and Ancillary Issues, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 809, decided on 4 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, took suo motu cognisance of
- [GUIDELINE VALUE MUST PREVAIL; HIGH COURT CANNOT ACT AS APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 227](https://theindianlawyer.in/guideline-value-must-prevail-high-court-cannot-act-as-appellate-authority-under-article-227/) - INTRODUCTION In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434, decided on 30 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice Aravind Kumar, examined two critical issues: determination of compensation based on guideline value under a compromise decree and the limits of the High Court’s
- [WHEN DELAY BECOMES PUNISHMENT: SUPREME COURT GRANTS BAIL IN MURDER CASE OVER VIOLATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-delay-becomes-punishment-supreme-court-grants-bail-in-murder-case-over-violation-of-speedy-trial-rights/) - INTRODUCTION In Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810, decided on 4 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, reiterated that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed merely because the accusation is grave in nature.
- [BEYOND COMPENSATION: RESTORING DIGNITY TO ACCIDENT VICTIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/beyond-compensation-restoring-dignity-to-accident-victims/) - Introduction In Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 454. In a Judgment delivered by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, the Supreme Court allowed the Claimant's Appeal, firmly modifying the Rajasthan High Court's decision. The ruling underscores that compensation for a minor suffering 100% permanent disability must be realistic,
- [Dignity Beyond Disability: A Constitutional Analysis of Reena Banerjee v. Government of NCT of Delhi](https://theindianlawyer.in/dignity-beyond-disability-a-constitutional-analysis-of-reena-banerjee-v-government-of-nct-of-delhi/) - Introduction In Reena Banerjee and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, reported as 2025 INSC 1101 and decided on 12 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark Judgment on disability rights and institutional reform. The Judgment was delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The Supreme
- [Navigating Real Estate Insolvency: A Deep Dive into the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Alpha Corp v. GNIDA](https://theindianlawyer.in/navigating-real-estate-insolvency-a-deep-dive-into-the-supreme-courts-ruling-in-alpha-corp-v-gnida/) - Introduction In Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and Others, 2026 INSC 449, decided on 05 May 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, clarified a crucial aspect of real estate insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: the validity
- [Section 28 Specific Relief Act: Separate Application Not Needed To Rescind Agreement To Sell For Buyer’s Default](https://theindianlawyer.in/section-28-specific-relief-act-separate-application-not-needed-to-rescind-agreement-to-sell-for-buyers-default/) - Introduction In Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, 2026 INSC 451, decided on 06 May 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti, clarified a crucial aspect of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the procedural requirement for rescinding a contract under Section 28. The Apex
- [WHEN PROCEDURE CLOUDS PROOF: SUPREME COURT REVIVES THE TRUE SCOPE OF SECTION 294 CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-procedure-clouds-proof-supreme-court-revives-the-true-scope-of-section-294-crpc/) - INTRODUCTION In R. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1383 of 2026, decided on 27 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, clarified the scope and purpose of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which
- [BETWEEN CHALK AND UNCERTAINTY: SUPREME COURT REFUSES BLANKET REGULARISATION OF PARA-TEACHERS, YET CALLS FOR END TO AD-HOCISM](https://theindianlawyer.in/between-chalk-and-uncertainty-supreme-court-refuses-blanket-regularisation-of-para-teachers-yet-calls-for-end-to-ad-hocism/) - INTRODUCTION In Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 INSC 462, decided on 7 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, examined the long-standing demand of Para-Teachers in Jharkhand for regularisation as Assistant Teachers and Sahayak Acharyas under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). While refusing
- [WHEN TIME OUTLIVES JUSTICE: SUPREME COURT OPENS PRISON GATES AFTER TWO DECADES OF SILENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-time-outlives-justice-supreme-court-opens-prison-gates-after-two-decades-of-silence/) - INTRODUCTION In Arjun Jani @ Tuntun v. State of Orissa, SLP (Crl.) No. 7128 of 2026, decided on 7 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, dealt with an extraordinary situation involving a life convict whose Criminal Appeal had been dismissed by the High Court solely
- [ENSURING JUSTICE BEFORE JUDGEMENT: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING](https://theindianlawyer.in/ensuring-justice-before-judgement-a-new-framework-for-death-penalty-sentencing/) - INTRODUCTION In Aman Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar 2026 INSC 424, (decided on 27 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, passed a decision that marks a crucial development in the jurisprudence of death penalty sentencing. This case not only addresses procedural aspects
- [BUYER NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR PURCHASING PROPERTY BASED ON WILL LATER FOUND FORGED](https://theindianlawyer.in/buyer-not-criminally-liable-for-purchasing-property-based-on-will-later-found-forged/) - INTRODUCTION In the intricate domain of Indian real estate and property succession, innocent buyers frequently find themselves entangled in protracted legal battles stemming from fraudulent actions committed by their vendors. The menace of fabricated title documents, particularly forged wills, casts an intimidating shadow over property transactions. In a landmark ruling that fortifies the rights of
- [CONSUMERS CANNOT BE BURDENED FOR ELECTRICITY NEVER SUPPLIED: SUPREME COURT RESTORES REGULATORY COMMISSION’S ORDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/consumers-cannot-be-burdened-for-electricity-never-supplied-supreme-court-restores-regulatory-commissions-order/) - INTRODUCTION In Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, 2026 INSC 461, decided on 7 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, examined the interplay between depreciation recovery, tariff regulations and consumer protection under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court held that a
- [ADMISSION OF DEBT BY IRP IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES LIMITATION UNDER IBC](https://theindianlawyer.in/admission-of-debt-by-irp-is-not-acknowledgment-supreme-court-clarifies-limitation-under-ibc/) - INTRODUCTION In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 INSC 429, decided on 29 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, delivered a significant ruling on limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court held that admission of a
- [HIGH COURT CANNOT USURP STATUTORY APPELLATE POWERS MERELY DUE TO DELAY: A Case Note on Premal Pratap Joisher & Anr. v. Vikram Jethlal Joisher & Ors., Civil Appeal (2026) (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12819–12820 of 2026, decided on 17 April 2026)  ](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-court-cannot-usurp-statutory-appellate-powers-merely-due-to-delay-a-case-note-on-premal-pratap-joisher-anr-v-vikram-jethlal-joisher-ors-civil-appeal-2026-civil-appeal-arisin/) - INTRODUCTION In Premal Pratap Joisher & Anr. v. Vikram Jethlal Joisher & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling delineating the contours of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment addresses a recurring judicial concern: whether High Courts can bypass statutory remedies and adjudicate disputes
- [CHALLENGE TO ARBITRAL JURISDICTION MUST AWAIT FINAL AWARD: SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS SCHEME OF ARBITRATION ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/challenge-to-arbitral-jurisdiction-must-await-final-award-supreme-court-reaffirms-scheme-of-arbitration-act/) - INTRODUCTION In M/s. MCM Worldwide Private Limited v. M/s. Construction Industry Development Council, 2026 INSC 425, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarified an important procedural aspect of arbitration law: an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration
- [PREVENTIVE LAWYERING IN THE ERA OF GENERATIVE AI: FORTIFYING CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES FOR INDIAN BUSINESSES](https://theindianlawyer.in/preventive-lawyering-in-the-era-of-generative-ai-fortifying-confidentiality-clauses-for-indian-businesses/) - INTRODUCTION The High Court of Delhi, in Christian Louboutin SAS & Anr. v. M/s The Shoe Boutique - Shutiq [CS (COMM) 583/2023], issued a historical ruling on 22 November 2023, being one of the first Indian judicial rulings to have had contact with Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI). Although it is mostly a case of trademark
- [SHARED FAULT, SHARED JUSTICE: THE DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE REVISITED](https://theindianlawyer.in/shared-fault-shared-justice-the-doctrine-of-contributory-negligence-revisited/) - INTRODUCTION In Parmila & Ors. v. Rajender & Ors, 2026 INSC 420, (decided on 23 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant intervention in the law governing motor accident compensation and the Doctrine of Negligence. The Court examined
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES: MAGISTRATE DOESN’T REQUIRE PRIOR SANCTION TO DIRECT FIR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 156(3) CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-magistrate-doesnt-require-prior-sanction-to-direct-fir-registration-under-section-1563-crpc/) - INTRODUCTION In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 943 of 2021 decided on 29 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, settled a crucial procedural debate in criminal law. The Court authoritatively ruled that a Magistrate does not require prior
- [CORPORATE GUARANTEE CONSTITUTES FINANCIAL DEBT: SUPREME COURT RESTORES STATUS OF LENDERS UNDER IBC](https://theindianlawyer.in/corporate-guarantee-constitutes-financial-debt-supreme-court-restores-status-of-lenders-under-ibc/) - INTRODUCTION In State Bank of India & Ors. v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Anr., 2026 INSC 423, decided on 28 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, examined the validity and enforceability of corporate guarantees within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
- [MAINTENANCE FOR CHILD CANNOT BE DEMANDED FROM A MAN IF A DNA TEST SHOWS HE IS NOT THE FATHER](https://theindianlawyer.in/maintenance-for-child-cannot-be-demanded-from-a-man-if-a-dna-test-shows-he-is-not-the-father/) - INTRODUCTION In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed a crucial principle related to whether a child born during marriage could claim maintenance when
- [SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS JUSTIFIES REVOCATION OF PROBATE: SUPREME COURT RESTORES TRIAL COURT’S ORDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/suppression-of-material-facts-justifies-revocation-of-probate-supreme-court-restores-trial-courts-order/) - INTRODUCTION In S. Leorex Sebastian & Anr. v. Sarojini & Ors., 2026 INSC 400, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, examined the scope of revocation of probate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court held that where probate is obtained by
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE CREDIBLE WITNESS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-life-sentence-on-the-basis-of-single-credible-witness/) - INTRODUCTION In Adalat Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2026 INSC 403, decided on 22 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, reaffirmed a settled but often contested principle of criminal law: a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a single witness, provided
- [FROM CONVICTION TO ACQUITTAL: THE ROLE OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-conviction-to-acquittal-the-role-of-reliable-evidence-in-criminal-law/) - INTRODUCTION In The State of Assam v. Moinul Haque@ Monu (decided on 16 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, decided by the Supreme Court of India, marks a significant reiteration of the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the limits of appellate review. The Bench, while examining
- [PREMATURE REJECTION, DENIED JUSTICE: REVISITING ORDER VII RULE 11](https://theindianlawyer.in/premature-rejection-denied-justice-revisiting-order-vii-rule-11/) - INTRODUCTION In M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & Ors. (decided on 21 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, examined the scope of rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Judgment arose from an Order of
- [IBC MECHANISM NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DECREE EXECUTION OR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/ibc-mechanism-not-substitute-for-decree-execution-or-recovery-proceedings/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam, 2026 INSC 410, on April 23, 2026, comprising of a Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. clarifying whether a decree-holder can invoke insolvency proceedings as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree. BRIEF FACTS The Respondent,
- [COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO FRAME POINTS FOR DETERMINATION EVEN IN EX- PARTE SUITS](https://theindianlawyer.in/courts-are-required-to-frame-points-for-determination-even-in-ex-parte-suits/) - INTRODUCTION In PRAMOD SHROFF vs MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA 2026 INSC 378 decided on 16 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice SANJAY KAROL and Justice AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH clarified a crucial principle related to whether failure to frame issues in an ex parte proceeding destroys the trial and what constitutes a
- [5 IMPORTANT PIECES OF EVIDENCE TO GATHER AFTER A REAR‑END IMPACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/5-important-pieces-of-evidence-to-gather-after-a-rear‑end-impact/) - Rear end collisions are among the most common roadway accidents, yet their consequences are often underestimated. While these crashes may seem straightforward, the aftermath can involve serious injuries, disputed liability, and complex insurance discussions. The strength of any claim following a rear end impact often hinges on the quality and completeness of evidence gathered in
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO REGISTER A SEPARATE FIR AGAINST WIFE AND HER FAMILY FOR GIVING DOWRY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-register-a-separate-fir-against-wife-and-her-family-for-giving-dowry/) - INTRODUCTION In Rahul Gupta vs Station House Officer 2026 INSC 374 decided on 16 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarified a crucial principle related to Section 3 (penalizing giving and taking dowry) and 7(3)(protection to aggrieved persons) of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Hon’ble Supreme
- [REJECTION OF PLAINT VS. BAR TO SUBSEQUENT SUIT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ORDER VII RULE 11 AND ORDER II RULE 2 CPC.](https://theindianlawyer.in/rejection-of-plaint-vs-bar-to-subsequent-suit-a-critical-analysis-of-order-vii-rule-11-and-order-ii-rule-2-cpc/) - INTRODUCTION In S. Valliammai & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Ors. (decided on 16 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, reiterated that rejection of a plaint is a stringent and narrowly circumscribed remedy. The Court emphasized that such rejection must be determined strictly on the
- [IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: SUPREME COURT ENDS DECADE-LONG MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/irretrievable-breakdown-and-abuse-of-process-supreme-court-ends-decade-long-matrimonial-litigation/) - INTRODUCTION In XXX v. YYY, SLP (Civil) No. 28311 of 2024), decided on 7 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage that had become unworkable due to prolonged litigation and acrimony. The Court
- [SUBSEQUENT EVENTS CANNOT ECLIPSE BONA FIDE NEED WITHOUT PROPER EVALUATION: SUPREME COURT REMANDS EVICTION SUIT](https://theindianlawyer.in/subsequent-events-cannot-eclipse-bona-fide-need-without-proper-evaluation-supreme-court-remands-eviction-suit/) - INTRODUCTION In Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte & Ors., 2026 INSC 376, decided on 16 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, clarified the approach to be adopted in landlord-tenant disputes involving bona fide requirement and subsequent events. The Court held that
- [REAFFIRMATION OF PRINCIPLES ON MINOR DISCREPANCIES IN TESTIMONY AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF VICTIM ANONYMITY IN RAPE CASES.](https://theindianlawyer.in/reaffirmation-of-principles-on-minor-discrepancies-in-testimony-and-strict-enforcement-of-victim-anonymity-in-rape-cases/) - INTRODUCTION In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand Alias Monu., 2026 INSC 290, decided on 24 March, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the High Court’s Judgment acquitting the Accused, rendered upon reversal of the conviction recorded
- [FORGERY BEYOND SIGNATURE: EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF DOCUMENTARY FRAUD](https://theindianlawyer.in/forgery-beyond-signature-expanding-the-scope-of-documentary-fraud/) - INTRODUCTION In CBI v. Shivaji Yadav [Case No. CBI/20/2021] (Judgment dated 30 March 2026), delivered by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, the Court examined the true scope of the offence of forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The Judgment ultimately resulted in the conviction of the Accused
- [CUSTODIAL TORTURE AND DEATH: A JUDICIAL RECKONING IN CBI VS. SRIDHAR & 9 OTHERS (2026)](https://theindianlawyer.in/custodial-torture-and-death-a-judicial-reckoning-in-cbi-vs-sridhar-9-others-2026/) - INTRODUCTION In CBI v. Sridhar & 9 Others [SC No. 470 of 2020], decided on 6 April 2026 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, the Court delivered a powerful Judgment addressing the issue of custodial violence and abuse of police authority. The case, arising out of the tragic deaths of Jeyaraj and
- [LETTER OF INTENT IS NOT A CONTRACT: SUPREME COURT REFUSES ARBITRATION IN ABSENCE OF CONCLUDED AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/letter-of-intent-is-not-a-contract-supreme-court-refuses-arbitration-in-absence-of-concluded-agreement/) - INTRODUCTION In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) & Ors. v. R.Z. Malpani, 2026 INSC 342, decided on 9 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, clarified a crucial principle in arbitration law: A Letter of Intent (LoI), by itself, does not create a binding
- [GENDER EQUALITY IN ARMED FORCES: PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR WOMEN OFFICERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/gender-equality-in-armed-forces-permanent-commission-for-women-officers/) - INTRODUCTION In Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors 2026 SCC OnLine SC 468., decided on 24 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment addressing the persistent issue of gender inequality within the Armed Forces, particularly in relation to the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to
- [RIGHT OF AN AFFECTED THIRD PARTY TO BE IMPLEADED IN WRIT PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGING BUILDING RULES](https://theindianlawyer.in/right-of-an-affected-third-party-to-be-impleaded-in-writ-proceedings-challenging-building-rules/) - INTRODUCTION In M/S Chopra Hotels Private Limited v. Harbinder Singh Sekhon and Ors., 2026 INSC 335, decided on 08 April, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice , the Supreme Court examined the scope of impleadment in writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, the rights of a non-party affected
- [FRESH SECTION 11 APPLICATION BARRED AFTER ABANDONMENT OF EARLIER ARBITRATION: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/fresh-section-11-application-barred-after-abandonment-of-earlier-arbitration-supreme-court-clarifies-law/) - INTRODUCTION In Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash, 2026 INSC 302, decided on 1 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narsimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, the Supreme Court examined whether a party can file a fresh Section 11 Arbitration Application after abandoning earlier proceedings on the same cause of action. BRIEF
- [JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF 498A IPC AND DOWRY LAWS](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-safeguards-against-abuse-of-498a-ipc-and-dowry-laws/) - INTRODUCTION In Charul Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2026 INSC 297, decided on 25 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, the Supreme Court examined the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial conflicts, highlighting the importance of clear evidence, safeguarding innocent relatives and applying
- [SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT FOUNDATIONAL FACTS: SUPREME COURT INTERVENES IN FEMA PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/show-cause-notice-cannot-survive-without-foundational-facts-supreme-court-intervenes-in-fema-proceedings/) - INTRODUCTION In J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., 2026 INSC 309, decided on 1 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, examined the validity of proceedings initiated under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The Court held that where the foundational
- [COURTS CANNOT ALLOW PARTIES TO CURE EVIDENTIARY DEFECTS IN ELECTION DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/courts-cannot-allow-parties-to-cure-evidentiary-defects-in-election-disputes/) - INTRODUCTION In Rakam Singh v. Amit & Ors., SLP (C) No. 25100 of 2025, decided on 20 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, held that courts cannot permit parties to fill evidentiary gaps in election petitions by ordering fresh evidence at the appellate stage. The Court
- [DELAY BEYOND STATUTORY TIMELINE VITIATES SARFAESI AUCTION: BORROWER’S RIGHT OF REDEMPTION PREVAILS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delay-beyond-statutory-timeline-vitiates-sarfaesi-auction-borrowers-right-of-redemption-prevails/) - INTRODUCTION In E. Muthurathinasabathy & Ors. v. M/s Sri International & Ors., 2026 INSC 303, decided on 1 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, held that non-compliance with mandatory timelines under the SARFAESI Rules renders an auction sale legally infirm, especially where the borrower has
- [MORATORIUM MEANS STANDSTILL: SUPREME COURT BARS ADJUSTMENT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT TOWARDS PRE-CIRP DUES](https://theindianlawyer.in/moratorium-means-standstill-supreme-court-bars-adjustment-of-security-deposit-towards-pre-cirp-dues/) - INTRODUCTION In Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd. v. Sumit Binani & Ors., 2026 INSC 284, decided on 23 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, examined the legality of appropriation of security deposits during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Court held that adjustment
- [NO ARBITRATION WITHOUT CONSENT: SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN AWARD IMPOSED BY STATE INTERVENTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/no-arbitration-without-consent-supreme-court-strikes-down-award-imposed-by-state-intervention/) - INTRODUCTION In M/s Bharat Udyog Ltd. v. Ambernath Municipal Council, 2026 INSC 288, decided on 24 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, reaffirmed a foundational principle of arbitration law: arbitration is rooted in consent and cannot be imposed unilaterally. The Court upheld the Bombay High
- [ABANDONED ONCE, CANNOT REAGITATE LATER: SUPREME COURT BARS EXECUTION ON GROUNDS OF ABUSE OF PROCESS](https://theindianlawyer.in/abandoned-once-cannot-reagitate-later-supreme-court-bars-execution-on-grounds-of-abuse-of-process/) - INTRODUCTION In Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors., 2026 INSC 292, decided on 25 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered a significant ruling on the interplay between execution proceedings, res judicata and abuse of process. While holding that dismissal of a
- [QUASHING OF FIR AT INVESTIGATION STAGE IS IMPERMISSIBLE WHERE PRIMA FACIE OFFENCE IS DISCLOSED:](https://theindianlawyer.in/quashing-of-fir-at-investigation-stage-is-impermissible-where-prima-facie-offence-is-disclosed/) - INTRODUCTION In Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur & Ors., decided on 17 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, addressed the scope and limits of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly in relation
- [FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE NOT BINDING WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH INDIAN MATRIMONIAL LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/foreign-divorce-decree-not-binding-without-compliance-with-indian-matrimonial-law/) - INTRODUCTION In Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale, Civil Appeal No. 1342 of 2013, decided on 15 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, addressed significant issues concerning the recognition of foreign divorce decrees and the applicability of Indian matrimonial law. The case
- [FROM BREACH TO CHEATING: SUPREME COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN CIVIL DISPUTES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-breach-to-cheating-supreme-court-draws-the-line-between-civil-disputes-and-criminal-liability/) - INTRODUCTION In V. Ganesan v. State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police & Anr., 2026 INSC 265, decided on 19 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, delivered an important ruling on the scope of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CONSUMER STATUS IN FIXED DEPOSITS MADE BY CORPORATES IN BANKING DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-consumer-status-in-fixed-deposits-made-by-corporates-in-banking-disputes/) - INTRODUCTION In Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. v. Vijaya Bank, 2026 INSC 264, decided on 19 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, examined whether a corporate entity making a fixed deposit with a bank can be treated as a “consumer” under
- [MOTHERHOOD BEYOND BIOLOGY: SUPREME COURT EXPANDS MATERNITY RIGHTS FOR ADOPTIVE MOTHERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/motherhood-beyond-biology-supreme-court-expands-maternity-rights-for-adoptive-mothers/) - INTRODUCTION In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 246, decided on 19 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice J.B. Pardiwala, undertook a significant constitutional examination of maternity benefits available to adoptive mothers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. The Court was called upon to determine the
- [The Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026: Reforming Refund of Court Fees and Strengthening Amicable Dispute Resolution in Delhi](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-court-fees-delhi-amendment-act-2026-reforming-refund-of-court-fees-and-strengthening-amicable-dispute-resolution-in-delhi/) - 1. Introduction Civil litigation in India often involves substantial financial costs, one of which is the payment of court fees at the time of instituting a suit or filing an appeal. These fees are governed primarily by the Court Fees Act, 1870 , which prescribes the manner and amount of fees payable on documents filed
- [AUCTION SALE CONFIRMATION DOES NOT BAR JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF VALUATION OF RESERVE PRICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/auction-sale-confirmation-does-not-bar-judicial-scrutiny-of-valuation-of-reserve-price/) - INTRODUCTION In Om Sakthi Sekar v. V. Sukumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3362 of 2026, decided on 13 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment delivered by Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, addressed an important issue concerning the extent to which a confirmed auction sale conducted in recovery proceedings
- [UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY AND COMMON OBJECT: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS MURDER CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 149 IPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/unlawful-assembly-and-common-object-supreme-court-upholds-murder-conviction-under-section-149-ipc/) - INTRODUCTION In Dablu & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 224, decided on 11 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on several accused for the murder of one Balkishan. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that members
- [CAUTION IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL: SUPREME COURT CANCELS RELIEF IN ALLEGED SC/ST ATROCITIES CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/caution-in-granting-anticipatory-bail-supreme-court-cancels-relief-in-alleged-sc-st-atrocities-case/) - INTRODUCTION In Kuldeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 13439–13440 of 2025, decided on 9 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, set aside the Order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the
- [ARBITRAL AUTONOMY AND WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS AWARD DESPITE CHALLENGE TO TRIBUNAL’S CONSTITUTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/arbitral-autonomy-and-waiver-of-objections-supreme-court-upholds-award-despite-challenge-to-tribunals-constitution/) - INTRODUCTION In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., 2026 INSC 228, decided on 11 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) challenging an arbitral award on the ground of
- [DIGNITY AT LIFE’S END: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES PASSIVE EUTHANASIA AND THE “BEST INTEREST” PRINCIPLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/dignity-at-lifes-end-supreme-court-clarifies-passive-euthanasia-and-the-best-interest-principle/) - INTRODUCTION In Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 222, decided on 11th March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivered a significant ruling on the constitutional framework governing passive euthanasia and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The case concerned a young man who had
- [COURT ORDERS MUST BE OBEYED FIRST, CHALLENGED LATER: SUPREME COURT WARNS AGAINST DELAYING COMPLIANCE THROUGH BELATED APPEALS](https://theindianlawyer.in/court-orders-must-be-obeyed-first-challenged-later-supreme-court-warns-against-delaying-compliance-through-belated-appeals/) - INTRODUCTION In Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors. and Md. Hanif v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors., 2026 INSC 209, decided on 24 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered a significant Judgment on the scope of contempt jurisdiction and the duty of authorities to
- [HIGH COURT CANNOT DILUTE RELIEF ALREADY GRANTED BY SUPREME COURT: FINALITY OF APEX COURT ORDERS REAFFIRMED](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-court-cannot-dilute-relief-already-granted-by-supreme-court-finality-of-apex-court-orders-reaffirmed/) - INTRODUCTION In Dr. Jiji K.S. & Ors. v. Shibu K. & Ors., 2026 INSC 207, decided on 27 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar, held that a High Court cannot effectively revisit or dilute the benefit of relief already granted by the Supreme Court in earlier
- [ENFORCING COMPLIANCE: SUPREME COURT WARNS HOSPITALS OVER VIOLATION OF FREE TREATMENT OBLIGATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/enforcing-compliance-supreme-court-warns-hospitals-over-violation-of-free-treatment-obligations/) - INTRODUCTION In Union of India v. Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust, Miscellaneous Application No. 1187 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2017, decided on 24 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, took serious note of the alleged non-compliance with its earlier Judgment dated 9
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS INQUIRY AND STATES THAT RELIANCE ON A.I GENERATED JUDGEMENTS IS MISCONDUCT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-inquiry-and-states-that-reliance-on-a-i-generated-judgements-is-misconduct/) - INTRODUCTION In Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr., SLP (C) No. 7575 of 2026, decided on 27 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, expressed serious institutional concern over the use of Artificial Intelligence–generated, non-existent judicial precedents in court orders. The
- [Celebrating Women in Law: Mrs. Sushila Ram Varma Featured in CEO Magazine Podcast](https://theindianlawyer.in/celebrating-women-in-law-mrs-sushila-ram-varma-featured-in-ceo-magazine-podcast/) - Viewers, our Chief Consultant, Mrs. Sushila Ram Varma was recently interviewed in a podcast by the CEO Magazine for Women’s day. You can see the same in the link below- https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=LOcHHPvi4BjQBMbX&v=uk3B29dWIw8&feature=youtu.be #LifeStory #Advocate #SushsilaRamVarma #InspiringStory #CareerWoman #WomensDaySpecial #EmpoweringWomen #WomenLeaders #LegalProfessional #IndependentSuccessfulWoman #CorporateStories #RoleModel #Mentor #TeachingLaw #SupremeCourt #India #TheIndianLawyer
- [BETWEEN POLICY AND PROSECUTION: THE JUDICIAL LINE DRAWN IN THE DELHI EXCISE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/between-policy-and-prosecution-the-judicial-line-drawn-in-the-delhi-excise-case/) - INTRODUCTION The decision of the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, in CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. (Order on Charge dated 27 February 2026) occupies a significant place in contemporary corruption jurisprudence. Emerging from the controversy surrounding the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22, the case involved allegations of large-scale criminal conspiracy, bribery,
- [OCULAR EVIDENCE PREVAILS: SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS CONVICTION DESPITE NON-RECOVERY OF WEAPONS AND GENERAL SECTION 313 QUESTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/ocular-evidence-prevails-supreme-court-affirms-conviction-despite-non-recovery-of-weapons-and-general-section-313-questions/) - INTRODUCTION In Ghanshyam Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), 2026 INSC 194, decided on 25 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and concurred by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, dismissed the Criminal Appeal challenging conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
- [ONE DEBT, MANY DOORS: SUPREME COURT SETTLES THE LAW ON SIMULTANEOUS INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRINCIPAL DEBTOR AND GUARANTOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/one-debt-many-doors-supreme-court-settles-the-law-on-simultaneous-insolvency-proceedings-against-principal-debtor-and-guarantor/) - INTRODUCTION In ICICI Bank Limited v. ERA Infrastructure (India) Limited & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 INSC 201, decided on 26 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta, conclusively held that simultaneous insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) can be initiated against both
- [LEASE, NOT LICENCE: SUPREME COURT RESTORES A 99-YEAR DEMISE AND REAFFIRMS SANCTITY OF REGISTERED CONVEYANCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/lease-not-licence-supreme-court-restores-a-99-year-demise-and-reaffirms-sanctity-of-registered-conveyances/) - INTRODUCTION In The General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla & Others, reported as 2026 INSC 199, decided on 26 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, set aside the Judgment of the Orissa High Court and restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and
- [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: MOTHER DOES NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO SHARE IF THE SON DIES INTESTATE LEAVING BEHIND WIFE AND CHILDREN](https://theindianlawyer.in/karnataka-high-court-mother-does-not-have-legal-right-to-share-if-the-son-dies-intestate-leaving-behind-wife-and-children/) - The High Court of Karnataka, in a Judgment delivered on February 2, 2026, addressed a significant error in the application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding the inheritance rights of Christian legal heirs. The case, titled Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Ors. v. Nil (MFA No. 3127 of 2024 (ISA)), was heard by
- [FORGED DEGREES, SUPPRESSED ANTECEDENTS AND PERVERSE BAIL: SUPREME COURT REASSERTS DISCIPLINE IN GRANT OF LIBERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/forged-degrees-suppressed-antecedents-and-perverse-bail-supreme-court-reasserts-discipline-in-grant-of-liberty/) - INTRODUCTION In Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported as 2026 INSC 144, the Supreme Court of India, by Judgment dated 11 February 2026, delivered a significant ruling on the annulment of bail granted in serious fraud cases involving forged academic credentials and impersonation as an advocate. The Bench comprising Justice R.
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HOMEBUYER CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO ACCEPT POSSESSION WITHOUT OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY BUILDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-homebuyer-cannot-be-compelled-to-accept-possession-without-occupancy-certificate-obtained-by-builder/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment addressing the rights of homebuyers against real estate developers. The decision pertained to a batch of civil appeals, primarily titled Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Mohit Khirbat (Civil Appeal No. 5289 of 2022). The connected matters included Parsvnath Developers Ltd. v. Gp. Capt. Suman Chopra
- [COOPERATION DOES NOT MEAN SELF-INCRIMINATION: SUPREME COURT SHIELDS ARTICLE 20(3) IN NDPS ANTICIPATORY BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/cooperation-does-not-mean-self-incrimination-supreme-court-shields-article-203-in-ndps-anticipatory-bail/) - INTRODUCTION In Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 20215 of 2025, decided on 16 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, set aside the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court denying anticipatory bail in an
- [TERMINATION OF ARBITRATOR’S MANDATE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE SUBSTITUTION; SECTION 29A MUST BE APPLIED CONTEXTUALLY](https://theindianlawyer.in/termination-of-arbitrators-mandate-does-not-automatically-require-substitution-section-29a-must-be-applied-contextually/) - INTRODUCTION In Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr., decided on 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, clarified an important aspect of arbitral jurisprudence concerning Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as “The
- [CASTE-BASED KNOWLEDGE IS FOUNDATIONAL TO SC/ST ACT CHARGES; ABSENCE OF PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL WARRANTS DISCHARGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/caste-based-knowledge-is-foundational-to-sc-st-act-charges-absence-of-prima-facie-material-warrants-discharge/) - INTRODUCTION In Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2026 INSC 141, decided on 10 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered an important Judgment clarifying the threshold required for framing charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
- [ANTICIPATORY BAIL CANNOT BE TIME-BARRED UNTIL FILING OF CHARGESHEET; PROTECTION CONTINUES ABSENT SPECIAL REASONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/anticipatory-bail-cannot-be-time-barred-until-filing-of-chargesheet-protection-continues-absent-special-reasons/) - INTRODUCTION In Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported as 2026 INSC 145, the Supreme Court of India, by Order dated 9 February 2026, delivered a significant ruling reaffirming the settled constitutional position on Anticipatory Bail. The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that once anticipatory bail is granted,
- [SUCCESSIVE FIRS AFTER BAIL ONLY TO PROLONG CUSTODY ABUSE OF PROCESS; FIT CASE TO INVOKE ARTICLE 32](https://theindianlawyer.in/successive-firs-after-bail-only-to-prolong-custody-abuse-of-process-fit-case-to-invoke-article-32/) - Introduction In Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55/2026, along with Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2026 (SLP (Crl.) No. 20248/2025), the Supreme Court dealt with allegations of repeated invocation of the criminal process to keep an accused in custody despite bail orders. The Bench comprised
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE CANNOT BE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR RESTRUCTURING OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF TELECOM SPECTRUM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-cannot-be-guiding-principle-for-restructuring-ownership-and-control-of-telecom-spectrum/) - Introduction In State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1810 of 2021 along with connected appeals), the Supreme Court addressed whether telecom service providers (TSPs) can invoke the IBC moratorium to avoid/hold up payment of license dues to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), by treating spectrum as an ‘asset’
- [5 Reasons To Hire A Personal Injury Lawyer](https://theindianlawyer.in/5-reasons-to-hire-a-personal-injury-lawyer/) - Understanding Complex Legal Procedures Personal injury cases involve detailed rules, deadlines, and procedures that can be difficult to manage without experience. Many people underestimate how much paperwork and evidence gathering is required to build a strong claim. A knowledgeable attorney understands how to organize documents, communicate with insurers, and meet important filing requirements. This guidance
- [ROAD RAGE DE-ESCALATION: STRATEGIES FOR STAYING SAFE WHEN TEMPERS FLARE](https://theindianlawyer.in/road-rage-de-escalation-strategies-for-staying-safe-when-tempers-flare/) - In the practice of law, regardless of jurisdiction, we observe a common pattern in vehicular disputes: what begins as a minor traffic infraction often escalates into significant criminal and civil liability. Whether navigating the interstate highways or the arterial roads, the legal principles governing human conduct remain remarkably consistent. Road rage is not merely a
- [LEASING A RESIDENTIAL FLAT DOES NOT DEFEAT CONSUMER STATUS; DOMINANT PURPOSE TEST REAFFIRMED](https://theindianlawyer.in/leasing-a-residential-flat-does-not-defeat-consumer-status-dominant-purpose-test-reaffirmed/) - INTRODUCTION In Vinit Bahri and Another v. M/s MGF Developers Ltd. and Another, reported as 2026 INSC 114, the Supreme Court of India, by a Judgment dated 4 February 2026, delivered an important pronouncement on the scope of the term “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and
- [STATUTORY AUTHORITIES MUST STEP IN WHEN HOUSING SOCIETY STALLS MEMBERSHIP; TENANCY HISTORY CANNOT DEFEAT COOPERATIVE RIGHTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/statutory-authorities-must-step-in-when-housing-society-stalls-membership-tenancy-history-cannot-defeat-cooperative-rights/) - INTRODUCTION In Shashin Patel & Anr. v. Uday Dalal & Ors., 2026 INSC 125, decided on 5 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivered an important ruling on the rights of flat occupants to cooperative society membership and the extent of supervisory
- [POWER OF REVIEW NOT INHERENT; EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES CANNOT REOPEN CONCLUDED QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/power-of-review-not-inherent-executive-authorities-cannot-reopen-concluded-quasi-judicial-orders/) - INTRODUCTION In State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 132, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered a constitutionally significant ruling restraining executive authorities from reopening long-concluded quasi-judicial decisions in the absence of express statutory authority. The Judgment categorically holds that the power of
- [CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS CANNOT BE CRIMINALISED AS RAPE; FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE REQUIRES LEGAL POSSIBILITY AND FRAUD AT INCEPTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/consensual-relationships-cannot-be-criminalised-as-rape-false-promise-of-marriage-requires-legal-possibility-and-fraud-at-inception/) - INTRODUCTION In Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2026 INSC 124, decided on 5 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a crucial Judgment drawing a firm constitutional and criminal law boundary between genuine sexual offences and consensual relationships that subsequently turn acrimonious.
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS WELFARE OF CHILD PARAMOUNT BUT NOT SOLE CONSIDERATION IN CUSTODY DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-welfare-of-child-paramount-but-not-sole-consideration-in-custody-disputes/) - Introduction In Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab, (SLP (C) No. 28934 of 2025), the Supreme Court of India dealt with a cross-border custody dispute involving two minor sons of the parties. The Judgment was delivered on 4 February 2026 by the Two Judge Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, in an appeal
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ARREST UNDER BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA MUST BE BASED ON FRESH MATERIAL NOT ON GROUNDS IN S.35(3) NOTICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-arrest-under-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-must-be-based-on-fresh-material-not-on-grounds-in-s-353-notice/) - In a landmark Judgment in the case titled Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (MA NO.2034 OF 2022, that strengthens protections for personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India has tightened the framework governing police arrests under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court has held that if police seek to
- [UNION BUDGET 2026-27: PAVING THE WAY FOR INDIA’S GROWTH THROUGH FISCAL STRATEGY](https://theindianlawyer.in/union-budget-2026-27-paving-the-way-for-indias-growth-through-fiscal-strategy/) - INTRODUCTION The Union Budget 2026–27 reflects a continued vision of Viksit Bharat. The Budget prioritises structural reforms, domestic capacity building and maintain Fiscal discipline to survive the challenges of global environment. The Budget adopts a medium- to long-term approach as it aims at economic growth and sustained performance rather than short term takeaways. FISCAL STRATEGY
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS STATE CANNOT DENY REGULARISATION OF LONG-SERVING CONTRACT STAFF APPOINTED ON SANCTIONED POST BY DUE PROCESS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-state-cannot-deny-regularisation-of-long-serving-contract-staff-appointed-on-sanctioned-post-by-due-process/) - Introduction In a decision that fundamentally reshapes the discourse surrounding contractual public sector employment, the Supreme Court of India, through a Judgment delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, has pronounced a substantial shift in constitutional jurisprudence. The case is titled Bhola Nath v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (SLP(C) No. 30762
- [MENSTRUAL HEALTH RECOGNISED AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BY THE SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/menstrual-health-recognised-as-a-fundamental-right-by-the-supreme-court/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant constitutional adjudication, the Supreme Court of India, by its Judgment dated 20 January 2026, in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2022, decisively affirmed that menstrual health and hygiene are integral to the fundamental rights to life, dignity, equality and education. The
- [AN ADVOCATE’S MERE PRESENCE OR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/an-advocates-mere-presence-or-professional-advice-does-not-constitute-criminal-intimidation/) - INTRODUCTION In its Judgment dated 20 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale in Beri Manoj v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14741 of 2025), has reaffirmed that
- [WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT AND ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RENDER DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ADVOCATE UNSUSTAINABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/withdrawal-of-complaint-and-absence-of-evidence-render-disciplinary-action-against-advocate-unsustainable/) - INTRODUCTION In its Judgment dated 29 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, has held that disciplinary proceedings against an advocate cannot be sustained where the complainant has withdrawn the complaint, expressed satisfaction with the advocate’s services and
- [CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED CONFESSION](https://theindianlawyer.in/conviction-cannot-be-sustained-solely-on-an-uncorroborated-confession/) - INTRODUCTION In its Judgment dated 27 January 2026, rendered in Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya (Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023), the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence: a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated confession. The criminal justice system demands that courts
- [DEMOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY MUST BE BASED ON CLEAR STATUTORY GROUNDS AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTORS](https://theindianlawyer.in/demolition-of-private-property-must-be-based-on-clear-statutory-grounds-and-consideration-of-all-factors/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India's Judgment in M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury and others (Civil Appeal Nos. 2920, 2921 and 2922‑2923 of 2018) reconciling private property rights with environmental preservation and cultural heritage protection near Santiniketan. The case was decided by the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS WHILE DECLINING TO QUASH FIR, HC SHOULD NOT DIRECT POLICE TO FOLLOW S.41A CRPC PROCEDURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-while-declining-to-quash-fir-hc-should-not-direct-police-to-follow-s-41a-crpc-procedure/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India's Judgment in Practical Solutions Inc. v. The State of Telangana & Others (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 953 of 2026, decided on January 19, 2026) addresses a critical dimension of criminal procedure, the necessity of affording parties a meaningful opportunity to present their case before adjudication. The matter was
- [SUPREME COURT SUGGESTS GOVERNMENTS TO DIGITIZE LAND RECORDS USING TAMPER-PROOF TECHNOLOGY LIKE BLOCKCHAIN](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-suggests-governments-to-digitize-land-records-using-tamper-proof-technology-like-blockchain/) - The Supreme Court of India's decision in Hemalatha (D) by Legal Representatives v. Tukaram (D) by Legal Representatives & Others Civil Appeal No. 6640 of 2010, serves as a landmark pronouncement on the threshold required to invalidate registered property deeds. The Appeal was decided by the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice
- [FROM UPLOAD TO OBLIGATION: WHEN DOES DELEGATED LEGISLATION TRULY BECOME LAW?](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-upload-to-obligation-when-does-delegated-legislation-truly-become-law/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported as 2026 INSC 80, delivered a constitutionally significant ruling on 21 January 2026, clarifying when delegated legislation acquires the force of law. The Judgment was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.
- [PROBATION IS NOT EXONERATION: FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO SERVICE AND THE PERSISTENCE OF MISCONDUCT](https://theindianlawyer.in/probation-is-not-exoneration-fraudulent-entry-into-service-and-the-persistence-of-misconduct/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in The Superintending Engineer v. The Labour Court, Madurai & Ors., decided on 12 January 2026, delivered a clarificatory ruling on the legal consequences of securing public employment through impersonation and forged educational certificates, even where the delinquent employee has been released on probation under the Probation of Offenders
- [INSOLVENCY IS NOT A SHORTCUT TO TITLE: LIMITS OF SECTION 60(5) AND THE ADJUDICATORY REACH OF THE NCLT](https://theindianlawyer.in/insolvency-is-not-a-shortcut-to-title-limits-of-section-605-and-the-adjudicatory-reach-of-the-nclt/) - INTRODUCTION In Gloster Limited v. Gloster Cables Limited & Ors., 2026 INSC 81, decided on 22nd January 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on the limits of insolvency jurisdiction, particularly in relation to disputed intellectual property rights. The Judgment was authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, sitting in civil appellate jurisdiction and
- [WHEN SUSPICION OVERREACHES PROOF: RESTORING THE SANCTITY OF ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL APPEALS](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-suspicion-overreaches-proof-restoring-the-sanctity-of-acquittal-in-criminal-appeals/) - INTRODUCTION In Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67, decided on 16 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India revisited core principles governing appeals against acquittal, circumstantial evidence and criminal conspiracy. The Judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Sanjay Karol.
- [BEYOND PAY SLIPS: PARENTHOOD, RESPONSIBILITY AND THE TRUE MEANING OF CHILD MAINTENANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/beyond-pay-slips-parenthood-responsibility-and-the-true-meaning-of-child-maintenance/) - INTRODUCTION The Delhi High Court, in Hitesh Makhija v. Ritu Makhija, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9664, delivered a nuanced and socially grounded judgment on 27 December 2025. The decision was authored by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who examined the contours of interim child maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV
- [SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT | SUPREME COURT HOLDS SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION SIMPLICITER NOT MAINTAINABLE WHEN PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IS DISPUTED](https://theindianlawyer.in/specific-relief-act-supreme-court-holds-suit-for-mandatory-injunction-simpliciter-not-maintainable-when-plaintiffs-title-is-disputed/) - The Supreme Court of India examined a significant question regarding the maintainability of mandatory injunction suits in the absence of prayers for possession in Sanjay Paliwal and Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016). The case was heard the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION OR HOMEBUYERS’ SOCIETY CAN’T INTERVENE IN INSOLVENCY PETITION AGAINST BUILDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-residents-welfare-association-or-homebuyers-society-cant-intervene-in-insolvency-petition-against-builder/) - The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a Judgment in the case titled Elegna Co-operative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 10261 of 2025), decided by Two Judge Bench comprising of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala on January 15, 2026. This Judgment, arising
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS GOVERNMENT CAN EXCLUDE CANDIDATES WITH HIGHER QUALIFICATION FROM POST REQUIRING LOWER QUALIFICATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-government-can-exclude-candidates-with-higher-qualification-from-post-requiring-lower-qualification/) - On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a batch of appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the 2024 Amendment Rules). The case titled MD. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025) was heard
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES: WHEN USING THE TERM “ARBITRATION” IS NOT ENOUGH IN ALCHEMIST HOSPITALS VS ICT HEALTH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-when-using-the-term-arbitration-is-not-enough-in-alchemist-hospitals-vs-ict-health/) - Introduction On 06.11.2025, the Apex Court n Alchemist Hospitals vs ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt Ltd., 2025 INSC 1289 reiterated that principle of arbitration law and examined whether a clause described as “arbitration” tantamount to arbitration agreement under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The ruling reinforces a basic but important principle- merely using the
- [POWER TO CONDONE DELAY LIES ONLY WITH COURTS, NOT TRIBUNALS UNLESS STATUTE EXPRESSLY PERMITS: SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/power-to-condone-delay-lies-only-with-courts-not-tribunals-unless-statute-expressly-permits-supreme-court/) - The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in The Property Company P Ltd. versus Rohinten Daddy Mazda (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3906 of 2017). This Judgment was delivered by the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R.Mahadevan, dealt with complex questions concerning the authority of the Company Law Board
- [STUDYING IN GOVT INSTITUTE DOESN’T GIVE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO GOVT JOB: SUPREME COURT REJECTS ‘LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION’ CLAIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/studying-in-govt-institute-doesnt-give-automatic-right-to-govt-job-supreme-court-rejects-legitimate-expectation-claim/) - Introduction The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Bhawana Mishra, Civil (SLP (C) No. 19707 of 2025), examined whether candidates who completed the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in a government college could claim a right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses on the basis of past practice and legitimate expectation. The
- [SUMMONED LATE, JUDGED DIFFERENTLY: RECALIBRATING BAIL STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 319 CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/summoned-late-judged-differently-recalibrating-bail-standards-under-section-319-crpc/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Md. Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 36, decided on 7 January 2026, has laid down important principles governing the grant of bail to persons summoned as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Judgment was delivered by a
- [WHEN THE HIGHEST BID IS STILL NOT ENOUGH: PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF PUBLIC AUCTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-the-highest-bid-is-still-not-enough-preserving-the-sanctity-of-public-auctions/) - INTRODUCTION In Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2026 INSC 22, the Supreme Court of India revisited the contours of fairness, arbitrariness and public accountability in State-conducted auctions. The Judgment, delivered on 6 January 2026 in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 18095–18096 of 2024, was authored by
- [WHEN A NOTICE SPEAKS LOUDER THAN A PETITION: RE-ANCHORING THE COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-a-notice-speaks-louder-than-a-petition-re-anchoring-the-commencement-of-arbitration/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point & Ors., 2026 INSC 32, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 30212 of 2024, delivered a significant ruling on 7 January 2026, clarifying the true meaning of “commencement of arbitral proceedings” under the Arbitration and Conciliation
- [WINTER VACATION & NEW YEAR NOTICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/winter-vacation-new-year-notice/) - On account of the Winter Vacation, no articles will be published this week. We will resume publishing our articles from 10th January. We take this opportunity to wish all our readers a very Happy New Year and thank you for your continued trust and support.
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS EMPLOYABILITY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT A WIFE’S CLAIM TO MAINTENANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-employability-alone-cannot-defeat-a-wifes-claim-to-maintenance/) - Introduction The case of A v. State and Anr. CRL.REV.P. 210/2018, CRL.M.A. 4612/2018, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 13 October 2025, was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. The Revision Petition was filed by the husband challenging concurrent Orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court granting interim maintenance to
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES BACK WAGES NORMS IN WRONGFUL TERMINATION WHEN EMPLOYER FAILS TO PROVE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-back-wages-norms-in-wrongful-termination-when-employer-fails-to-prove-gainful-employment/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India in Dinesh Chandra Sharma (Dead) Through LRs v. Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8180/2020) revisited the principles governing back wages in cases of wrongful termination. The Appeal was decided on 15 December 2025 by the Division Bench comprising Justice
- [PATIENT CARE VS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE: SUPREME COURT RESTORES POWERS OF THE WEST BENGAL CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENT COMMISSION](https://theindianlawyer.in/patient-care-vs-medical-negligence-supreme-court-restores-powers-of-the-west-bengal-clinical-establishment-commission/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant Judgment addressing the jurisdictional boundaries between regulatory commissions and medical councils in healthcare dispute resolution. In Kousik Pal v. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Others (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 8365/2024), the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj
- [LIBERTY, VICTIM’S VOICE AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: RECALIBRATING BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/liberty-victims-voice-and-judicial-discipline-recalibrating-bail-jurisprudence-under-the-sc-st-prevention-of-atrocities-act/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Lakshmanan v. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Others, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6647–6650 of 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 1483, delivered a significant judgment on 19 December 2025. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan. This Judgment
- [A NAME IN THE RECORDS, NOT A TITLE IN LAW: MUTATION, WILLS, AND THE LIMITS OF REVENUE JURISDICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-name-in-the-records-not-a-title-in-law-mutation-wills-and-the-limits-of-revenue-jurisdiction/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Another, Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439 of 2024), reported as 2025 INSC 1485, delivered an important judgment on 19 December 2025. The decision was authored by Justice Manoj Misra, speaking for the Bench. The Judgment clarifies
- [FROM SEALS TO SIGNATURES: INDIA’S QUIET MUCH NEEDED CHANGE IN TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-seals-to-signatures-indias-quiet-much-needed-change-in-testamentary-succession/) - INTRODUCTION Succession law, though seldom discussed until loss strikes, governs one of the most intimate transitions in human life; the passage of property, responsibility and legacy from one generation to the next. In December 2025, the Indian Parliament undertook a subtle yet transformative reform in this domain by removing the requirement of mandatory probate for
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS PASSPORT RENEWAL CAN’T BE DENIED DUE TO PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL CASE WHEN TRIAL COURT HAS PERMITTED RENEWAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-passport-renewal-cant-be-denied-due-to-pendency-of-criminal-case-when-trial-court-has-permitted-renewal/) - Introduction In a significant ruling reaffirming the sanctity of personal liberty against bureaucratic rigidity, the Supreme Court of India has paved the way for the renewal of passports for individuals facing criminal charges, provided they have secured appropriate judicial clearances. The Judgment was delivered in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
- [CHILD TRAFFICKING| SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE OF VICTIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/child-trafficking-supreme-court-lays-down-guidelines-to-evaluate-evidence-of-victims/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police, (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11287 of 2025) is a significant pronouncement on child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. The Two Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
- [BALANCING WINGS AND WIRES: AN ECOCENTRIC TURN IN INDIA’S ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/balancing-wings-and-wires-an-ecocentric-turn-in-indias-environmental-jurisprudence/) - INTRODUCTION In M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019, along with connected matters, reported as 2025 INSC 1472, the Supreme Court of India delivered a far-reaching Judgment on 18 December 2025. The decision was rendered by a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal
- [PRESUMPTIONS AT THE THRESHOLD: RESTRAINING PREMATURE QUASHING UNDER THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/presumptions-at-the-threshold-restraining-premature-quashing-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India delivered an important ruling on 19 December 2025 in M/s Sri Om Sales v. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 5588 of 2025. The Judgment was pronounced by a Division Bench consisting of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The Judgment reaffirms the settled
- [LIS PENDENS, AUCTION SALES, AND THE LIMITS OF BONA FIDE PURCHASES: REASSERTING DISCIPLINE IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/lis-pendens-auction-sales-and-the-limits-of-bona-fide-purchases-reasserting-discipline-in-execution-proceedings/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) through LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14761 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 14461 of 2019), reported as 2025 INSC 1434, delivered a comprehensive and authoritative judgment on 15 December 2025. The decision was authored by Justice
- [WHEN TIME RUNS OUT: TERMINATION AND SUBSTITUTION OF ARBITRATORS UNDER SECTION 29A](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-time-runs-out-termination-and-substitution-of-arbitrators-under-section-29a/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. M/s Bharat Textiles & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 13759 & 13779 of 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 1409, delivered a crucial judgment on 10 December 2025. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe. The Judgment
- [MERCY TEMPERED WITH AUTHORITY: RE-EXAMINING APOLOGY AND PUNISHMENT IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT](https://theindianlawyer.in/mercy-tempered-with-authority-re-examining-apology-and-punishment-in-criminal-contempt/) - INTRODUCTION In Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay (On Its Own Motion), Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 1408, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment on 10 December 2025. The case was decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
- [WHEN TIME BECOMES THE ESSENCE: DISCIPLINE, DELAY AND FORFEITURE UNDER THE INSOLVENCY REGIME](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-time-becomes-the-essence-discipline-delay-and-forfeiture-under-the-insolvency-regime/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in M/s. Shri Karshni Alloys Private Limited v. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan, Civil Appeal Nos. 3625–3628 of 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 1411, delivered an important judgment on 10 December 2025. The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe. The Judgment revisits fundamental
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT POLICE CAN FREEZE BANK ACCOUNTS INVOKING S.102 CRPC IN CASES UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-police-can-freeze-bank-accounts-invoking-s-102-crpc-in-cases-under-prevention-of-corruption-act/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India in The State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey, (Criminal Appeal No. 5373 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1003 of 2025), delivered a significant Judgment on 10 December 2025 on the scope of police powers to freeze bank accounts in corruption cases. The Appeal was
- [POSH ACT | SUPREME COURT HOLDS WOMAN CAN APPROACH ICC OF HER DEPARTMENT AGAINST HARASSMENT BY EMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER WORKPLACE](https://theindianlawyer.in/posh-act-supreme-court-holds-woman-can-approach-icc-of-her-department-against-harassment-by-employee-of-another-workplace/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant decision in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Another, (Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024), on 10th December 2025. The Bench consisted of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi and the Judgment addressed whether an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted in one government
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS INCLUSIVITY FOR UPSC EXAMINATIONS; ISSUES DIRECTIONS REGARDING SCREEN READERS, SCRIBES AND SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-inclusivity-for-upsc-examinations-issues-directions-regarding-screen-readers-scribes-and-substantive-equality/) - The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant Judgment in the case titled ‘Mission Accessibility V. Union of India & Ors.’ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 2025, heard and decided by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on December 3, 2025. The Petition was filed by Mission Accessibility, a non-governmental organization working for the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A CANDIDATE CAN’T BE DISQUALIFIED MERELY FOR NOT HAVING DEGREE TITLE IF CORE SUBJECT WAS STUDIED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-candidate-cant-be-disqualified-merely-for-not-having-degree-title-if-core-subject-was-studied/) - The Supreme Court of India gave Judgment in a recent case titled ‘Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others’ (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18907 of 2025) interpreting the educational qualifications in recruitment matters, the application of constitutional principles to contractual employment and the imperative of natural justice in administrative proceedings. The Two
- [ECHOES BEFORE THE SILENCE: A JUDICIAL REFLECTION ON TRUTH AND ACCOUNTABILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/echoes-before-the-silence-a-judicial-reflection-on-truth-and-accountability/) - INTRODUCTION In Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 INSC 1386, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. revisited the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case concerned
- [A CLOAK OF PROTECTION: UNRAVELLING JUDICIAL OVERREACH IN PRE-ARREST DIRECTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-cloak-of-protection-unravelling-judicial-overreach-in-pre-arrest-directions/) - INTRODUCTION This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 17464–17465 of 2025), delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The Judgment, pronounced on 1 December 2025, examines the legality of the Allahabad
- [GUARDIANS OF THE WILD: SUPREME COURT’S RESTORATION MANDATE FOR CORBETT NATIONAL PARK](https://theindianlawyer.in/guardians-of-the-wild-supreme-courts-restoration-mandate-for-corbett-national-park/) - INTRODUCTION In Re: Corbett (2025), decided on 17 November 2025 by a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark Judgment aimed at rescuing the deteriorating ecology of the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The Court issued strong directions to regulate tourism, restore damaged core areas and reform long-term conservation
- [COMPLETE PVT LTD COMPANY REGISTRATION CHECKLIST FOR BUSINESS OWNERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/complete-pvt-ltd-company-registration-checklist-for-business-owners/) - Getting a Pvt Ltd Company Registration checklist helps business owners prepare their documents, meet business regulatory requirements, and run operations in multiple sectors. By registering your company, you give the indication of following each step with care, keeping the accounting details clean, and moving through the process efficiently and legally. How to prepare and follow
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS MUST BE JUSTIFIED ON REASONS STATED THERE; CANNOT ADD FRESH GROUNDS LATER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-administrative-orders-must-be-justified-on-reasons-stated-there-cannot-add-fresh-grounds-later/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (SLP (C) No. 6531/2025), addressed a critical issue in public procurement law. The case was decided by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS WITNESSES TURNING HOSTILE IN DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A GROUND TO SEEK DISCHARGE IN CRIMINAL TRIAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-witnesses-turning-hostile-in-departmental-proceedings-is-not-a-ground-to-seek-discharge-in-criminal-trial/) - Introduction In a significant Judgment delivered on November 10, 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta disposed of the case of T. Manjunath v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (SLP(Crl.) Nos. 11160-11161 of 2024). The Appeals challenged a Karnataka High Court order dated July 26,
- [WHEN VIGILANCE FADES: A JUDICIAL TREATISE ON DUTY, DELAY AND EXECUTION SALE](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-vigilance-fades-a-judicial-treatise-on-duty-delay-and-execution-sale/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs. v. K.J. Prakash Kumar & Ors., 2025 INSC 1353, delivered on 25 November 2025 by Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, offers a detailed examination of the limits of judicial intervention in execution proceedings—particularly the effect of Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the
- [WHEN SILENCE BECOMES ERROR: A JUDICIAL REMINDER ON FAIR MATRIMONIAL ADJUDICATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-silence-becomes-error-a-judicial-reminder-on-fair-matrimonial-adjudication/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Dr. Anita v. Indresh Gopal Kohli, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24920 of 2019, delivered on 14 November 2025 by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, revisits core principles governing divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court
- [JUSTICE AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY: THE SUPREME COURT DRAWS A LINE ON ABUSE OF CRIMINAL PROCESS](https://theindianlawyer.in/justice-against-double-jeopardy-the-supreme-court-draws-a-line-on-abuse-of-criminal-process/) - INTRODUCTION In Ranimol & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4931 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) 2285/2022), decided on 18 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India—Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma—reaffirmed a vital principle of criminal jurisprudence: the criminal process cannot be manipulated to
- [SHARED DESTINATIONS, DIFFERENT PATHS: EQUALISING SENIORITY IN THE HIGHER JUDICIARY](https://theindianlawyer.in/shared-destinations-different-paths-equalising-seniority-in-the-higher-judiciary/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s Judgment in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 1328 (W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989), delivered on 19 November 2025 by a Constitution Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, finally settles
- [PATHS NOT TAKEN: THE PERILS OF SKIPPING STATUTORY REMEDIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/paths-not-taken-the-perils-of-skipping-statutory-remedies/) - INTRODUCTION This Article examines the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6719 of 2012, decided on 12 November 2025 by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar. The core legal issue in the case revolves around the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
- [WHEN JUSTICE REFUSES TO BE DELAYED](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-justice-refuses-to-be-delayed/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment in P.U. Sidhique & Ors. v. Zakariya, Civil Appeal Nos. 13901–13902 of 2025, decided on 21 November 2025 by Hon’ble Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan. The Ruling examines whether, during an appeal against an eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
- [VACANCY AT THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES (DELHI & HYDERABAD OFFICE)](https://theindianlawyer.in/vacancy-at-the-indian-lawyer-allied-services-delhi-hyderabad-office/) - We are looking for 2 Lawyers for our Hyderabad Office having 2-3 year experience with good command over English language and hard working. We also want 1 Lawyer for our Delhi Office with 3 year experience. Only candidates serious about the profession should apply as we want long term association. Candidates to apply at contact@theindianlaywer.in
- [NAVIGATING THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT: APPEALABILITY OF PLAINT REJECTION ORDERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/navigating-the-commercial-courts-act-appealability-of-plaint-rejection-orders/) - INTRODUCTION This article examines the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. vs. M/S. Renuka Realtors and Ors. (2025 INSC 1300), delivered on November 10, 2025. The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, addressed a crucial procedural question concerning the appealability of an order rejecting
- [A DECREE REVIVED: THE NULLITY OF JUDGMENTS AGAINST DECEASED PARTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-decree-revived-the-nullity-of-judgments-against-deceased-parties/) - INTRODUCTION This article analyses the significant Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1283). The Judgment was passed by a Coram consisting of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar. The case primarily addresses the legal validity of a decree
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS PENDENCY OF WRIT PROCEEDINGS NO GROUND TO NOT AVAIL ALTERNATIVE STATUTORY REMEDIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-pendency-of-writ-proceedings-no-ground-to-not-avail-alternative-statutory-remedies/) - The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 titled Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors. The Court addressed critical issues concerning the scope of statutory remedies available under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and the intersection between
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS: MERE WEAPON RECOVERY AND FSL REPORT NOT ENOUGH IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-mere-weapon-recovery-and-fsl-report-not-enough-in-absence-of-corroborative-evidence/) - The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision addressed a challenging question of criminal jurisprudence concerning the sufficiency of evidence required to sustain a conviction for murder. The Appeal titled Govind v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024) was filed against conviction by the Trial Court and subsequent affirmation by the
- [LAND DISPUTE SETTLED: THE LIMITS OF POSSESSION UNDER THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/land-dispute-settled-the-limits-of-possession-under-the-specific-relief-act/) - Introduction This article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.S. Manjunath v. Moorasavirappa, delivered on November 10, 2025. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, dealt with a dispute over an order of injunction and the scope of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Brief Facts Original
- [MV ACT | SUPREME COURT RULES PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS CANNOT PLY ON INTER-STATE ROUTES OVERLAPPING WITH NOTIFIED STATE TRANSPORT ROUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/mv-act-supreme-court-rules-private-bus-operators-cannot-ply-on-inter-state-routes-overlapping-with-notified-state-transport-routes/) - Introduction The Two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, in the case titled U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chief General Manager Vs. Kashmiri Lal Batra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.10522 of 2025) addressed a significant controversy surrounding the grant and countersignature of stage carriage permits for
- [SUPREME COURT RULES WRITTEN GROUNDS OF ARREST MUST BE FURNISHED IN LANGUAGE ARRESTEE UNDERSTANDS; OTHERWISE ARREST & REMAND ILLEGAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-written-grounds-of-arrest-must-be-furnished-in-language-arrestee-understands-otherwise-arrest-remand-illegal/) - Introduction The Supreme Court in the case titled Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State Of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No.2195 Of 2025), examined whether grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to comply with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Division Bench of
- [THE CLOUDED WILL: WHEN POSSESSION PREVAILS OVER PAPER OWNERSHIP](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-clouded-will-when-possession-prevails-over-paper-ownership/) - In S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal, 2025 INSC 1197, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, delivered a nuanced judgment on 7 October 2025, exploring the interplay between title, possession and injunction relief under property law. The Court examined whether a plaintiff can successfully seek
- [THE SEVEN-YEAR SILENCE: WHEN PRESUMPTION OF DEATH MEETS COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-seven-year-silence-when-presumption-of-death-meets-compassionate-appointment/) - In The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Lalita & Ors., 2025 INSC 1280, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, delivered a significant ruling on 29 October 2025, clarifying the law surrounding civil death, presumption of death under Section 108 of the
- [ECHOES BEYOND THE GRAVE: WHEN DEAD LITIGANTS NULLIFY JUSTICE INTRODUCTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/echoes-beyond-the-grave-when-dead-litigants-nullify-justice-introduction/) - In Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 INSC 1283, the Supreme Court of India, through a Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, examined a striking question of civil procedural law — whether a decree passed in favour of deceased appellants, without substitution of legal heirs, holds
- [HIGH COURTS MUST KEEP THEIR HANDS AWAY WHEN SUPREME COURT IS SEIZED OF A MATTER’: SUPREME COURT PULLS UP UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-courts-must-keep-their-hands-away-when-supreme-court-is-seized-of-a-matter-supreme-court-pulls-up-uttarakhand-high-court/) - Introduction Environmental protection and constitutional governance intersect significantly when judicial proceedings encounter administrative delays and procedural complications. The Supreme Court of India, in the matter titled ‘In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India & Ors (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995)’, concerning illegal constructions and deforestation within the Corbett Tiger Reserve, was compelled to
- [SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE: SUPREME COURT ACQUITS MAN ACCUSED OF RAPE, MURDER AND ROBBERY OF 85 YEAR OLD WOMAN](https://theindianlawyer.in/significant-gaps-in-circumstancial-evidence-supreme-court-acquits-man-accused-of-rape-murder-and-robbery-of-85-year-old-woman/) - The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant Judgment in the case titled ‘Mohamed Sameer Khan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2024), presided over by the Two Judge Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, which resulted in the acquittal of Mohamed Sameer Khan. The Appeal
- [THE TESTAMENT OF READINESS: UPHOLDING CONTRACTUAL SANCTITY IN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-testament-of-readiness-upholding-contractual-sanctity-in-specific-performance/) - INTRODUCTION In the recent Judgment of Annamalai v. Vasanthi & Others, 2025 INSC 1267, delivered on 29 October 2025, a Two-judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra of the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of judicial interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and reaffirmed the
- [WHEN MEMORY FALTERS, JUSTICE MUST NOT: THE SUPREME COURT ON WITNESS CREDIBILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-memory-falters-justice-must-not-the-supreme-court-on-witness-credibility/) - WHEN MEMORY FALTERS, JUSTICE MUST NOT: THE SUPREME COURT ON WITNESS CREDIBILITY INTRODUCTION The credibility of witnesses forms the backbone of every criminal trial. Yet, in many cases, witnesses are hastily branded as “hostile” for small differences in their statements. In a recent and noteworthy Judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Shivkumar @ Baleshwar
- [WHEN FLAMES TEST FAITH: UPHOLDING FAIRNESS IN FIRE INSURANCE CLAIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-flames-test-faith-upholding-fairness-in-fire-insurance-claims/) - WHEN FLAMES TEST FAITH: UPHOLDING FAIRNESS IN FIRE INSURANCE CLAIMS INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 INSC 1271 (Civil Appeal Nos. 3806 & 3855 of 2020), delivered on 30 October 2025 by a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, reinforces the principles of good
- [WHEN LAW LISTENS TO THE HEART: A COMPASSIONATE TURN IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-law-listens-to-the-heart-a-compassionate-turn-in-criminal-justice/) - INTRODUCTION In the Judgment of K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 1272, delivered on October 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the conviction of an appellant under Section
- [NOTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/note/) - In view of the Diwali holidays, no new articles will be published during the week of 25th October 2025, as the Supreme Court will remain closed for the Diwali recess. We will resume publishing our regular articles from 1st November 2025. Wishing all our readers a very Happy and Prosperous Diwali!
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS CONTENT OF DEED GOVERNS STAMP DUTY OVER NOMENCLATURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-content-of-deed-governs-stamp-duty-over-nomenclature/) - The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant Judgment on October 8, 2025, in M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr. (S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 36434 of 2014), reaffirming a crucial precedent in stamp duty law. The Two-Judge bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah clarified that the content and legal effect
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DUE PROCESS IN EMPLOYMENT TERMINATIONS SETTING ASIDE SUSPENSION OF JHARKHAND SCHOOL TEACHERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-due-process-in-employment-terminations-setting-aside-suspension-of-jharkhand-school-teachers/) - Introduction In a significant Judgment titled Ravi Oraon v. The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11748 of 2025), the Supreme Court of India recently restored the services of certain school teachers in Jharkhand who were dismissed months after their appointment on the ground of ineligibility, based on a charge not raised in
- [BETWEEN HOMES AND HOPES: SUPREME COURT’S STAND ON SPECULATIVE INVESTMENTS UNDER THE INSOLVENCY CODE](https://theindianlawyer.in/between-homes-and-hopes-supreme-courts-stand-on-speculative-investments-under-the-insolvency-code/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors., 2025 INSC 1110, decided on 12 September 2025, by Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered a landmark Judgment addressing the interplay between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The decision, arising out of multiple connected
- [THE LIMITS OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL — SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE SCOPE OF ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-limits-of-summary-dismissal-supreme-court-clarifies-the-scope-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc/) - INTRODUCTION In Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3560–3561 of 2023, decided on 15 October 2025, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra of the Supreme Court of India delivered an important ruling on the principles governing rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
- [JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT AND THE LIMITS OF CBI REFERRALS: A REAPPRAISAL BY THE SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-self-restraint-and-the-limits-of-cbi-referrals-a-reappraisal-by-the-supreme-court/) - In Legislative Council, U.P. Lucknow & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11842–11846 of 2025, decided on 16 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, revisited the delicate balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint in matters involving investigative directions to the Central Bureau
- [CHEQUE DISHONOUR COMPLAINT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST TRUSTEE WITHOUT ARRAYING TRUST AS ACCUSED: SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/cheque-dishonour-complaint-maintainable-against-trustee-without-arraying-trust-as-accused-supreme-court/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment delivered on October 9, 2025, in Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal (SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRIMINAL) NO. 4459/2023), addressed a crucial question regarding the maintainability of complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against trustees when a trust is not impleaded
- [THE CONSTITUTIONAL BRIDGE: REAFFIRMING ELIGIBILITY FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-constitutional-bridge-reaffirming-eligibility-for-judicial-service/) - INTRODUCTION This article analyses the landmark Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on the scope of direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. The case, titled Rejanish K.V. VS. K. Deepa and Others [Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020], along with connected matters, was pronounced on October 09, 2025. The Constitution Bench that
- [THE FINALITY OF CRIMINAL ORDERS: POLICING THE POWER OF REVIEW](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-finality-of-criminal-orders-policing-the-power-of-review/) - INTRODUCTION This article provides an analysis of the landmark Judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others. The Judgment, bearing the citation SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2797-2798 of 2025), was delivered on October 08, 2025. The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta,
- [THE LONG WAIT FOR JUSTICE: JUVENILITY AND THE SUPREME COURT’S COMPASSIONATE CORRECTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-long-wait-for-justice-juvenility-and-the-supreme-courts-compassionate-correction/) - INTRODUCTION In Hansraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 340 of 2025], the Supreme Court of India (Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih) delivered its Judgment on 9 October 2025, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32. The case revolved around the Petitioner, a murder convict, who had
- [WHEN LIBERTY MEETS LIFE: THE CONSTITUTIONAL SOUL OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-liberty-meets-life-the-constitutional-soul-of-reproductive-right/) - Introduction to the Topic: The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Arun Muthuvel vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 756 of 2022 has delivered a landmark Judgment by reinforcing that human rights and personal liberty lie at the heart of any law governing assisted reproduction. In a progressive and humane judgment, the Supreme
- [Supreme Court Upholds the Sanctity of Commercial Contracts](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-sanctity-of-commercial-contracts/) - In a recent judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India titled SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd., (Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2088 (or 2025 INSC 1171).) the Supreme Court, hearing an appeal against the Orissa High Court's Division Bench judgment, upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the
- [HIGH COURTS SHOULD DISCOURAGE DIRECT FILING OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL PLEAS, ASK PARTIES TO APPROACH SESSIONS COURT FIRST: SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-courts-should-discourage-direct-filing-of-anticipatory-bail-pleas-ask-parties-to-approach-sessions-court-first-supreme-court/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India's recent decision in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar (SLP (Crl.) No.17805 of 2024) has reinforced judicial principles governing anticipatory bail applications, particularly in cases involving serious criminal charges. Decided on September 17, 2025, by the Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, this Judgment addresses critical issues surrounding
- [SUPREME COURT RULES TRIAL COURTS CANNOT ADD CHARGES SOLELY BASED ON PRIVATE AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT INVESTIGATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-trial-courts-cannot-add-charges-solely-based-on-private-affidavits-without-investigation/) - Introduction In a significant Judgment that reinforces the principle of procedural fairness in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India in Deepak Yadav and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [SLP (Crl.) No.6904 of 2025] addressed a critical question regarding the powers of Trial Courts to take cognizance of additional charges based on private affidavits.
- [BETWEEN INTIMACY AND ALLEGATION: THE SUPREME COURT ON QUASHING FIRs IN CASES OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/between-intimacy-and-allegation-the-supreme-court-on-quashing-firs-in-cases-of-promise-of-marriage/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India in the case of Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., {SLP(Crl.) No. 3361 of 2025}, delivered its Judgment on 22nd September 2025. The Bench comprised Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The case examined the delicate intersection of consensual intimacy, allegations of rape on
- [JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: SUPREME COURT’S REBUKE ON IMPROPER SURRENDER OF JURISDICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-discipline-and-accountability-supreme-courts-rebuke-on-improper-surrender-of-jurisdiction/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India in Shiv Kumar Shaw Anr. v. Rekha Shaw (Diary No. 45777/2024) (arising out of Crl.A. No. 2842/2023), passed its Order on 26 September 2025. The Bench consisted of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale. The case revolved around the unusual conduct of a Trial Court Judge who,
- [DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT OF SENIOR CITIZENS TO REVOKE GIFT DEEDS ON GROUNDS OF NEGLECT AND BROKEN TRUST](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-upholds-right-of-senior-citizens-to-revoke-gift-deeds-on-grounds-of-neglect-and-broken-trust/) - The case of Smt. Varinder Kaur vs. Smt. Daljit Kaur & Ors. (LPA 587/2025) was recently adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, with judgment delivered on 26th September 2025 by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The division bench, in its ruling, dismissed the intra-court Appeal, upholding the cancellation of
- [FROM GENSETS TO POWER PACKS: REDEFINING MANUFACTURE UNDER EXCISE LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-gensets-to-power-packs-redefining-manufacture-under-excise-law/) - Introduction to the Topic: The Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/S Quippo Energy Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad – II, Civil Appeal Nos. 9418-9420 of 2016, Coram – Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has held a landmark judgment. In Indian excise law, a critical question arises as to
- [CONSUMER PROTECTION AND EQUITABLE RELIEF: SUPREME COURT ENHANCES INTEREST RATE IN REAL ESTATE DELAY CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/consumer-protection-and-equitable-relief-supreme-court-enhances-interest-rate-in-real-estate-delay-cases/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh Sharma v. M/s. Business Park Town Planners Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3988 of 2023) delivered a significant verdict addressing consumer protection in real estate disputes, particularly concerning interest rate parity between builders and buyers. Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard this Appeal challenging the National Consumer
- [SECTION 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT: PRE-COGNIZANCE SUMMONS NOT REQUIRED – SUPREME COURT CHARTS GUIDELINES](https://theindianlawyer.in/section-138-negotiable-instruments-act-pre-cognizance-summons-not-required-supreme-court-charts-guidelines/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010) addressed critical issues concerning cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case primarily revolved around whether a complainant's limited financial capacity could rebut statutory presumptions. by the High Court revision jurisdiction.
- [ENDING THE CULTURE OF ADJOURNMENTS: SUPREME COURT ON SPEEDY TRIALS](https://theindianlawyer.in/ending-the-culture-of-adjournments-supreme-court-on-speedy-trials/) - In CBI v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (SLP (Crl.) No. 969 of 2025, decided on 22 September 2025), a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan addressed systemic delays in criminal trials, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual offences. The Court was deeply concerned with
- [SHELTER, DIGNITY, AND LAW: REAFFIRMING THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS AGAINST ERRANT CHILDREN](https://theindianlawyer.in/shelter-dignity-and-law-reaffirming-the-rights-of-parents-against-errant-children/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Kamlakant Mishra v. Additional Collector & Ors. (Diary No. 42786 of 2025), delivered on 12 September 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, examined the scope of the Maintenance Tribunal’s powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES LIMITS OF CHEATING AND CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-limits-of-cheating-and-criminal-breach-of-trust/) - In a decisive judgment dated September 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, addressed fundamental legal questions regarding the criminalization of contractual disputes and the misuse of criminal justice machinery. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Another, [Criminal Appeal Arising out
- [SUPREME COURT DEFINES RIGHTS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, BANKS AND AUCTION PURCHASERS IN E-AUCTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-defines-rights-of-public-authorities-banks-and-auction-purchasers-in-e-auctions/) - In an important decision delivered on September 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, presided by Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, addressed critical questions on the legality and procedural integrity of e-auction sales of leasehold properties. The Apex court, in Delhi Development Authority v. Corporation Bank & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 11269 of 2016],
- [SUPREME COURT ON TAX ASSESSMENT TIME LIMITS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-on-tax-assessment-time-limits/) - On September 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in Ms. Shiv Steels v. State of Assam & Others (Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2014). The Judgment, authored by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, decisively addressed the interplay between different time limitation provisions under the Assam General Sales Tax Act,
- [SUPREME COURT ON ABUSE OF PROCESS IN SEC. 498A, IPC MATTER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-on-abuse-of-process-in-sec-498a-ipc-matter/) - In a judgment delivered on September 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, set aside both an FIR and related High Court order, underscoring the rigorous standards for allowing prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case, Nitin Ahluwalia v.
- [NAVIGATING EXECUTION AMIDST PENDING APPEALS: THE AUTHORITY OF COURTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/navigating-execution-amidst-pending-appeals-the-authority-of-courts-under-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 11840/2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 20480 of 2025) – Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka through SPA & Ors., addressed a critical issue concerning the execution of arbitral awards amidst pending appeals. The Judgement was delivered on 15th September 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj
- [LIMITS ON RECALL OF JUDICIAL ORDERS IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL MATTERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/limits-on-recall-of-judicial-orders-in-anticipatory-bail-matters/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 3843/2025, decided on 15th September 2025, Coram: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah & S.V.N. Bhatti, has addressed a nuanced yet crucial aspect of criminal procedure—the limits on recalling or restoring judicial orders, particularly in
- [STRICT COMPLIANCE COMPULSORY IN NOTICE U/S 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/strict-compliance-compulsory-in-notice-u-s-138-negotiable-instruments-act/) - The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the strict and technical compliance required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), particularly regarding the contents of a demand notice issued under Proviso (b) of the Section. BACKGROUND FACTS The case arose from a dispute involving a dishonoured cheque issued for Rs. 1 crore
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS: FIR MANDATORY FOR COGNIZABLE OFFENCES, EVEN AGAINST CBI OFFICERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-fir-mandatory-for-cognizable-offences-even-against-cbi-officers/) - Supreme Court's recent Judgment in Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. (S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 of 2019 and Connected matters), emphasizes the accountability within investigative agencies and the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences. Delivered by Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, this Judgment underscores that even officers
- [SUPREME COURT RE-DEFINES STANDARDS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-re-defines-standards-for-condonation-of-delay-under-the-limitation-act/) - In a significant ruling on September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, re-examined and clarified the jurisprudence relating to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The detailed Judgment in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board &
- [SUPREME COURT MANDATES NATIONWIDE MONITORING AND REFORMS FOR STATE-RUN DISABILITY INSTITUTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-mandates-nationwide-monitoring-and-reforms-for-state-run-disability-institutions/) - In an important decision in Public Interest Litigation (PIL), titled as Reena Banerjee & Anr v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998], the Supreme Court of India has directed a number of essential reforms for the care, protection and rights of persons with cognitive disabilities in State
- [JUDICIAL PRUDENCE IN QUASHING UNFOUNDED CHEATING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-prudence-in-quashing-unfounded-cheating-allegations-against-educational-institutions/) - INTRODUCTION In Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 9744 of 2024], the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, delivered its Judgment on 10th September 2025. The Appeal arose from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’s Order dated 18.04.2024, which had refused to quash
- [THE RIGIDITY OF SENTENCES AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF JUSTICE: A CONSTITUTIONAL REFLECTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-rigidity-of-sentences-and-the-flexibility-of-justice-a-constitutional-reflection/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India in Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale and Anr. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 314 of 2022, decided on 2nd September 2025, examined the constitutional challenge to Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018. The case was heard by
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS: ONLY REGISTERED SALE DEEDS CAN TRANSFER PROPERTY TITLE – GPA, AGREEMENT TO SELL AND UNPROVED WILLS INVALID](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-only-registered-sale-deeds-can-transfer-property-title-gpa-agreement-to-sell-and-unproved-wills-invalid/) - Introduction The Supreme Court Judgment in Ramesh Chand (D) through Legal Representatives v. Suresh Chand and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012) delivered on September 1, 2025, by the Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta, stands as a definitive pronouncement on property transfer law in India. This ruling definitively settles the
- [SUPREME COURT RULES: NO ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN SC/ST ATROCITY OFFENCES IF PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-no-anticipatory-bail-in-sc-st-atrocity-offences-if-prima-facie-case-exists/) - Introduction In a significant Judgment delivered on September 1, 2025, a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025) reinforced the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S POWER TO AWARD PENDENTE LITE INTEREST DESPITE CONTRACTUAL CLAUSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-arbitral-tribunals-power-to-award-pendente-lite-interest-despite-contractual-clause/) - The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. M/s G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 11324 of 2025], has clarified the scope of the Arbitral Tribunal’s power to award interest pendente lite (during arbitration proceedings), particularly when the contract contains clauses related to
- [SUPREME COURT REASSERTS PRINCIPLES ON BAIL CANCELLATION AND WITNESS PROTECTION SCHEME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reasserts-principles-on-bail-cancellation-and-witness-protection-scheme/) - The Supreme Court, in a recent pronouncement in Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025], has delivered a detailed judgment clarifying the interplay between Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (WPS) and the cancellation of bail, particularly when accused persons are alleged to have threatened witnesses. This decision, delivered by
- [WHEN CIVIL WRONGS WEAR CRIMINAL ROBES: THE SUPREME COURT’S REAFFIRMS COMPROMISE IN CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-civil-wrongs-wear-criminal-robes-the-supreme-courts-reaffirms-compromise-in-cheque-dishonour-cases/) - INTRODUCTION In Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Anr., [SLP (Crl.) No. 8050 of 2025], decided on 11 August 2025 by Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again examined the relationship between criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) and the legal weight accorded to compromise between disputing
- [SHADOWS OF COERCION: CORPORATE OPPRESSION AND JUDICIAL INTERVENTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/shadows-of-coercion-corporate-oppression-and-judicial-intervention/) - INTRODUCTION Corporate disputes are rarely confined to financial ledgers; they often expose deeper struggles of power, trust and fairness. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the matter of Mrs. Shailja Krishna v. Satori Global Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6377–6378 of 2023) (Date of Judgement 2 September 2025) (Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. Vinod
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THAT SUBSTITUTION OF PROPRIETOR FOR BUSINESS NAME DOES NOT DEFEAT CAUSE OF ACTION IN SUIT PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-that-substitution-of-proprietor-for-business-name-does-not-defeat-cause-of-action-in-suit-proceedings/) - The Supreme Court of India rendered a significant Judgment on August 26, 2025, in the case titled Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Another v. Pilla Durga Prasad & Others. (SLP(C) No. 25938 of 2023). The Bench consisted of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, who addressed fundamental questions concerning the legal representation and status of
- [RULE 102 ORDER XXI CPC: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES PROTECTION FOR BONA FIDE PURCHASERS WITH INDEPENDENT TITLE CHAIN AGAINST TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE BAR](https://theindianlawyer.in/rule-102-order-xxi-cpc-supreme-court-clarifies-protection-for-bona-fide-purchasers-with-independent-title-chain-against-transferee-pendente-lite-bar/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India delivered its Judgment in Tahir V Isani vs. Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) Now Through His Legal Representatives & Others (SLP(C) No. 15167 of 2022). The Two Judges Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vikram Nath, rendered this significant decision addressing crucial issues concerning execution of decrees and the
- [WHEN DELAY ISN’T DISOBEDIENCE: SC ON LIMITS OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/when-delay-isnt-disobedience-sc-on-limits-of-contempt-jurisdiction/) - INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India in the case of A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr. Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1002–1003 of 2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6732–6733 of 2009 (Date of Judgment: 19 August 2025) (Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih), addressing allegations of contempt
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-requirement-for-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-in-circumstantial-evidence-case/) - The Supreme Court, in a powerful judgment in the case of Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2019 with 154 of 2025], rigorously examined the evidentiary standards required in criminal trials, particularly those relying exclusively on circumstantial evidence. Delivered by Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, this decision carries significant
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS EXPORTERS’ RIGHTS: PROCEDURAL ERRORS CANNOT DEFEAT MEIS BENEFITS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-exporters-rights-procedural-errors-cannot-defeat-meis-benefits/) - INTRODUCTION On 19 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in M/s Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1032) (Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Aravind Kumar). The case revolved around the denial of benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) due to a
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF RECALL/REVIEW UNDER SECTION 362, CrPC IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-recall-review-under-section-362-crpc-in-criminal-proceedings/) - The Supreme Court, in a recent decision in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr [SLP (Crl.) No. 3425 of 2022], has dealt in detail with the limits of criminal courts’ powers to review or recall their own orders, especially in the context of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This
- [SUPREME COURT RULES FOR REGULARIZATION OF LONG-SERVING DAILY WAGE WORKERS IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-for-regularization-of-long-serving-daily-wage-workers-in-public-institutions/) - In an important judgement in the matter of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018), the Supreme Court has reiterated that public institutions cannot indefinitely rely on ad hoc or daily wage workers to perform essential and permanent duties, and that fairness, transparency, and dignity must
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES COGNIZANCE BAR UNDER SEC. 195, CrPC FOR OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC SERVANTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-cognizance-bar-under-sec-195-crpc-for-offences-against-public-servants/) - In a significant judgement in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr [SLP (Criminal) No. 12373 of 2025], the Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the scope and application of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), particularly concerning offences under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"),
- [FIEO HOSTS ONE-DAY PROGRAM ON EXPORT DOCUMENTATION AND TRADE FINANCE AT HYDERABAD](https://theindianlawyer.in/fieo-hosts-one-day-program-on-export-documentation-and-trade-finance-at-hyderabad/) - Recently, our Chief Legal Consultant & Co-Founder, Mrs. Sushila Ram Varma, was invited as a distinguished speaker and expert, at the Federation of Indian Export Organisation's (FIEO) One Day Program on Export Documentation and Trade Finance. On 21st August 2025, FIEO successfully organized a one-day program on Export Documentation and Trade Finance at Hyderabad. The
- [SUPREME COURT DENIES DEEMED EXPORT BENEFITS – HOLDS POWER PLANT IS NOT ‘GOODS’ UNDER FOREIGN TRADE POLICY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-denies-deemed-export-benefits-holds-power-plant-is-not-goods-under-foreign-trade-policy/) - Introduction On August 19, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Nabha Power Limited (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL) in the case titled Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8694 of 2017). Both companies sought deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-2014. Delivering the Judgment, the Two Judge Bench
- [SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH TO STRAY DOG MANAGEMENT: A CAUTIOUS STEP FORWARD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-courts-approach-to-stray-dog-management-a-cautious-step-forward/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark Judgment in the suo moto case titled In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price” (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 5 of 2025) addressing the contentious issue of stray dog management in India. This ruling by the Three Judge Bench comprising of Justice
- [THE TOLL OF INCONVENIENCE: SUPREME COURT ON CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND ROAD CONCESSIONAIRE DUTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-toll-of-inconvenience-supreme-court-on-citizens-rights-and-road-concessionaire-duties/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of National Highways Authority of India & Anr. v. O.J. Janeesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 22579 of 2025, decided on 18.08.2025)( Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria) addressed the contentious issue of toll collection amid widespread traffic congestion and poor road conditions on the
- [FROM MESSENGER TO MIDDLEMAN: THE SUPREME COURT’S REAFFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL LIMITS IN DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-messenger-to-middleman-the-supreme-courts-reaffirmation-of-judicial-limits-in-departmental-inquiries/) - FROM MESSENGER TO MIDDLEMAN: THE SUPREME COURT’S REAFFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL LIMITS IN DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Ramadhar Sao (Civil Appeal No. 10680 of 2025, decided on 20.08.2025) (Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan) revisited the outlines of judicial review
- [SUPREME COURT RE-AFFIRMS STRICT PLEADING REQUIREMENT FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-re-affirms-strict-pleading-requirement-for-adverse-possession-claims/) - In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India rejected a plea based on adverse possession in the case of Kishundeo Rout & Ors. v. Govind Rao & Ors., holding that such a claim cannot be sustained unless a clear, specific foundation of the same is laid in the pleadings. The verdict, delivered by Justices J.B.
- [TELANGANA HIGH COURT MANDATES OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FOR ELECTRICITY CONNECTIONS IN MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/telangana-high-court-mandates-occupancy-certificate-for-electricity-connections-in-multi-storey-buildings/) - In a significant ruling reinforcing urban regulatory compliance, the Telangana High Court in the matter of ‘Mohammed Arif Rizwan vs. State of Telangana (W.P. No. 22672 of 2025)’, directed that electricity supply for multi-storeyed buildings will be granted only upon production of a valid Occupancy Certificate, issued by municipal authorities. The said Judgement came in a matter
- [SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN GENDER-BASED QUOTA IN ARMY’S JAG RECRUITMENT: MERIT MUST PREVAIL OVER GENDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-strikes-down-gender-based-quota-in-armys-jag-recruitment-merit-must-prevail-over-gender/) - In a landmark judgment reinforcing gender equality in the armed forces, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on August 11, 2025, in case of Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023). The Two-Judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, struck down
- [SUPREME COURT REINFORCES ARBITRATION AUTONOMY: NO ROLE FOR NON-SIGNATORIES, NO JUDICIAL INTERVENTION POST APPOINTMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reinforces-arbitration-autonomy-no-role-for-non-signatories-no-judicial-intervention-post-appointment/) - On August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important Judgment in Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/s L.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (SLP (Civil) Nos. 4775-4779/2025), addressing two fundamental questions in arbitration law. The Bench comprising Justices Chandurkar and Narasimha, unanimously ruled against non-signatory participation in arbitration proceedings and prohibited judicial intervention after
- [EX PARTE INJUNCTIONS AND THE RULE OF LAW: THE SUPREME COURT’S REAFFIRMATION OF PROCEDURAL SANCTITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/ex-parte-injunctions-and-the-rule-of-law-the-supreme-courts-reaffirmation-of-procedural-sanctity/) - INTRODUCTION The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025)( Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan)(Date of Judgement- 11.08.2025), addressed the procedural compliance necessary for granting an ex parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule
- [JUSTICE DEFERRED; JUSTICE DENIED: SUPREME COURT’S REPROOF TO THE HIGH COURT ON SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE”](https://theindianlawyer.in/justice-deferred-justice-denied-supreme-courts-reproof-to-the-high-court-on-suspension-of-sentence/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant ruling in Aasif @ Pasha v. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3409 of 2025 (decided on 06.08.2025) the Supreme Court addressed the improper application of legal principles by the Allahabad High Court in rejecting an application for suspension of sentence. The Apex Court stressed the necessity for Appellate
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES PROMISE OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT PER SE CONSTITUTE RAPE; PROCEEDINGS QUASHED IN POCSO CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-promise-of-marriage-does-not-per-se-constitute-rape-proceedings-quashed-in-pocso-case/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment in the case titled Kunal Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal (SLP Crl. No. 7004 of 2025), which has important implications for the interpretation of laws concerning promises on pretext of marriage, consensual relationships, and allegations of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT SCHOOL RECORDS DO NOT OUTWEIGH PUBLIC RECORD WHILE ASCERTAINING JUVENILITY CLAIM IN MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-school-records-do-not-outweigh-public-record-while-ascertaining-juvenility-claim-in-murder-case/) - The Apex Court, in a Judgment delivered on August 1, 2024, in the case titled Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.347 of 2018), set aside the juvenile status granted to an accused, holding that a mere school certificate was insufficient proof for determining juvenility when more reliable public records contradicted it.
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASES: REINSTATES COMPLAINTS FILED AT MANGALORE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-territorial-jurisdiction-in-cheque-dishonour-cases-reinstates-complaints-filed-at-mangalore/) - In a decisive judgment delivered on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India resolved a frequently contested issue about where cheque dishonour complaints must be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act”). In ‘Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat and Anr. (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5540-5543 of 2024), the Court reversed
- [SUPREME COURT RE-AFFIRMS DISBALED EMPLOYEE’S RIGHTS AND DIRECTS TSRTC TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE EMPLOYMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-re-affirms-disbaled-employees-rights-and-directs-tsrtc-to-provide-alternate-employment/) - In a significant verdict, handed down on August 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered clarity and justice in ‘Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 2025)’. The Court directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) to reinstate a driver, Joseph, who had been retired solely on
- [BETRAYAL WITHIN THE WALLS: SUPREME COURT’S UNCOMPROMISING STAND ON INCESTUOUS SEXUAL VIOLENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/betrayal-within-the-walls-supreme-courts-uncompromising-stand-on-incestuous-sexual-violence/) - INTRODUCTION In the case of Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal)] Diary No. 33114 of 2025, decided on 4 August, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, upheld the life sentence imposed on the Petitioner for repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor daughter. The Division Bench of
- [MISUSE OF CRIMINAL LAW FOR DEBT RECOVERY: SUPREME COURT CRITICIZES HIGH COURT’S IGNORANCE IN QUASHING PETITION CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/misuse-of-criminal-law-for-debt-recovery-supreme-court-criticizes-high-courts-ignorance-in-quashing-petition-case/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant Judgment delivered on 4th August 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly deprecated the misuse of criminal law for enforcing civil liabilities in commercial disputes. The case of M/s Shikhar Chemicals v. State of U.P. & Anr [SLP (Criminal) No. 11445 of 2025] (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and J.R. Mahadevan] arising from
- [Mallcom (India) Limited Vs Rakesh Kumar: Court can pass summary Judgement under Order 13 A of commercial court act even suo moto](https://theindianlawyer.in/mallcom-india-limited-vs-rakesh-kumar-court-can-pass-summary-judgement-under-order-13-a-of-commercial-court-act-even-suo-moto/) - Introduction: The case of Mallcom (India) Limited & Anr. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. [CS(COMM) 480/2016], decided by the Delhi High Court on March 19, 2019, before Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, is a landmark decision in Indian intellectual property law, demonstrating the efficacy of summary judgment in commercial disputes involving trademark infringement, passing off, and
- [SARFAESI PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE UNLESS MSME TIMELY INVOKES PROTECTIVE FRAMEWORK: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/sarfaesi-proceedings-continue-unless-msme-timely-invokes-protective-framework-supreme-court-clarifies/) - In a notable decision, the Supreme Court in Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution & Anr. v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 684 of 2025), definitively addressed whether banks must proactively identify "incipient stress" in MSME loan accounts before classifying them as NPAs or initiating
- [SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR DNA EVIDENCE HANDLING, ACQUITS DEATH ROW CONVICT IN SENSATIONAL DOUBLE MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-lays-down-guidelines-for-dna-evidence-handling-acquits-death-row-convict-in-sensational-double-murder-case/) - In a landmark judgment delivered on July 15, 2025, in Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019), the Supreme Court of India acquitted a man on death row, overturning his conviction for the murders and rape that had sent shockwaves across Tamil Nadu. The Court’s detailed ruling not only exposed
- [SUPREME COURT: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE USED TO SETTLE CIVIL DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-criminal-proceedings-cannot-be-used-to-settle-civil-disputes/) - In the recent Judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. versus State of Karnataka & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8626 of 2024) date of Judgement- 31.07.2025) (Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah), the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the realm of criminal jurisprudence, reaffirming that in the absence of
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION ACT TO ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER MSMED ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-applicability-of-limitation-act-to-arbitration-proceedings-under-msmed-act/) - In a pivotal ruling delivered on July 17, 2025, by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9524-9532 of 2025), the Court dissected the intersection of the Limitation Act, 1963 with the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Micro, Small and
- [Parshottam Kumar Vs Hafiz Mohd Sami: A review petition is maintainable if no appeal has been filed at the time of its filing](https://theindianlawyer.in/parshottam-kumar-vs-hafiz-mohd-sami-a-review-petition-is-maintainable-if-no-appeal-has-been-filed-at-the-time-of-its-filing/) - Introduction: This case is a significant decision by the Delhi High Court that addresses the interplay between the right to file a review petition and an appeal under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The case clarifies the legal position regarding the maintainability of an appeal when a review
- [Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva Vs. Skyways Air Services : Plaint and documents filed under O 7 R 14 CPC , to be seen for determination of cause of action](https://theindianlawyer.in/gurmeet-singh-sachdeva-vs-skyways-air-services-plaint-and-documents-filed-under-o-7-r-14-cpc-to-be-seen-for-determination-of-cause-of-action/) - Introduction: The case of Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd. [CM(M) 147/2024, Delhi High Court] is a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court that addresses the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly the requirement for a plaint to disclose a cause of
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES: SECOND QUASHING PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON GROUNDS ALREADY AVAILABLE DURING THE FIRST PETITION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-second-quashing-petition-is-not-maintainable-on-grounds-already-available-during-the-first-petition/) - In a significant reaffirmation of legal principles governing criminal procedural law, the Supreme Court on July 23, 2025, in the case titled M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan & Ors. (SLP (Criminal) No. 12715 of 2022), held that a second petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings is
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES: ENTIRE APPEAL WILL ABATE IF LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PARTY IN A JOINT DECREE ARE NOT SUBSTITUTED IN TIME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-entire-appeal-will-abate-if-legal-heirs-of-deceased-party-in-a-joint-decree-are-not-substituted-in-time/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant pronouncement on July 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Suresh Chandra (Dead) through LRs Vs Parasram (SLP (C) Nos.15900-15902/2022) (Justices Manoj Mishra and P.N Narsimha) reiterated the consequences of failing to substitute legal representatives in an appeal involving a joint and indivisible decree. The Court held
- [FRAUD VITIATES DOCTRINE OF MERGER: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS APPEAL AGAINST TAINTED HIGH COURT ORDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/fraud-vitiates-doctrine-of-merger-supreme-court-allows-appeal-against-tainted-high-court-order/) - In a significant ruling on July 23, 2025, in the case of Vishnu Vardhan@ Vishnu Pradhan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023)(Justice Dipankar Dutta, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) a Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not apply where a
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRIBAL WOMEN’S SUCCESSION RIGHTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-tribal-womens-succession-rights/) - INTRODUCTION: In Ram Charan & Ors v. Sukhram & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5559 of 2023)), the Supreme Court examined the question of whether a tribal woman is entitled to inherit ancestral property. The Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi examined whether,
- [New Life Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. NLCARE Pvt.Ltd.: A family trademark adopted by a common ancestor cannot be exclusively appropriated by one branch](https://theindianlawyer.in/new-life-laboratories-pvt-ltd-vs-nlcare-pvt-ltd-a-family-trademark-adopted-by-a-common-ancestor-cannot-be-exclusively-appropriated-by-one-branch/) - Introduction: Heard in the High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division, the case revolves around the plaintiff’s claim to exclusive rights over the trademark "NEW LIFE" and the defendant’s alleged infringement through the use of "NL" in its corporate name "NLCARE Private Limited." The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, while the defendant
- [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AGAINST TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMAS (TTD) FOR VIOLATING THE AGAMA SHASHTRAS IN THE WORSHIP OF LORD VENKATESHWARA AT TIRUMALA.](https://theindianlawyer.in/public-interest-litigation-filed-before-the-supreme-court-of-india-against-tirumala-tirupati-devasthanamas-ttd-for-violating-the-agama-shashtras-in-the-worship-of-lord-venkateshwara-at-tirumala/) - My Team and myself consider ourselves blessed to have been given an opportunity to work for the implementation of correct rituals that have to be followed in the worship of Lord Venkateshwara (Lord) at Tirumala which is considered to be a very sacred Mandir by the Hindus not only in India but across the globe.
- [SC OBSERVES PENSION CANNOT BE CURTAILED ARBITRARILY, MUST FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/sc-observes-pension-cannot-be-curtailed-arbitrarily-must-follow-the-procedure/) - INTRODUCTION: The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 15.07.2025, delivered a thoughtful and empathetic Judgment. The Bench comprising of Justice P.S Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in the case of Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors (2025 INSC 848) reiterated the principle that pension is not a matter of discretion, but a protected right
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES: A COMPANY AS A LEGAL ENTITY CAN FILE AN APPEAL AS A VICTIM UNDER SECTION 372](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-a-company-as-a-legal-entity-can-file-an-appeal-as-a-victim-under-section-372/) - BRIEF FACTS In its recent decision in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu & Anr. (SLP (Criminal) No. 9888 of 2024, decided on 14 July 2025), the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, unequivocally held that a "victim" under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure
- [EXCLUSION OF NATURAL HEIRS FROM A WILL: SUPREME COURT REITERATES NEED FOR CLOSER SCRUTINY IN WILL THAT DENIES NATURAL HEIRS RIGHTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/exclusion-of-natural-heirs-from-a-will-supreme-court-reiterates-need-for-closer-scrutiny-in-will-that-denies-natural-heirs-rights/) - BRIEF FACTS The Supreme Court, in the case of Gurdial Singh (Dead Through LR) Vs Jagir Kaur (Dear through LR) (Civil Appeal No. 3509-3510 of 2010) (Decided on 17.07.2025) (Decided by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Baghchi) recently dealt with a dispute involving the validity of a Will executed by one Maya Singh. The
- [SUPREME COURT REVERSES ITS CUSTODY ORDER, RETURNS 13-YEAR-OLD TO MOTHER AS CHILD MENTAL HEALTH DETERIORATED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reverses-its-custody-order-returns-13-year-old-to-mother-as-child-mental-health-deteriorated/) - In an unusual yet significant move, the Supreme Court has reversed its own Order of granting custody of a 13-year-old boy to his father, instead restoring permanent custody to the mother. The decision came in light of compelling psychological evidence and fresh developments that pointed to the child’s deteriorating mental health after separation from his
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PROOF OF TENANCY BEFORE MORTGAGE MUST BE ESTABLISHED TO CLAIM PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTION UNDER SARFAESI ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-proof-of-tenancy-before-mortgage-must-be-established-to-claim-protection-against-eviction-under-sarfaesi-act/) - On July 15, 2025, in an important Judgment that clarifies the legal standing of tenants under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that tenants who fail to establish their tenancy prior to the creation of a mortgage cannot claim protection against eviction by secured creditors. The decision came in the case titled PNB
- [Agriboard International Vs Deputy Controller of Patents :Courts will intervene when patent rejections lack reasoning](https://theindianlawyer.in/agriboard-international-vs-deputy-controller-of-patents-courts-will-intervene-when-patent-rejections-lack-reasoning/) - Introduction: The case of Agriboard International LLC vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, decided by the Delhi High Court on March 31, 2022, stands as a landmark in Indian patent law, highlighting the critical need for reasoned and transparent decision-making in the adjudication of patent applications. This appeal, filed under Section 117A of the
- [THE CASTLE DOCTRINE IN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: LIMITS ON NOCTURNAL SURVEILLANCE OF HISTORY-SHEETERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-castle-doctrine-in-indian-constitutional-law-limits-on-nocturnal-surveillance-of-history-sheeters/) - The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Prasath C. v. State of Kerala (Decided on 19.06.2025) (Decided by Justice V.G. Arun) held that Police authorities are not empowered to enter the homes of history-sheeters at odd hours under the guise of surveillance. I. BRIEF FACTS The Petitioner, Prasath C., a 47-year-old resident The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Prasath C. v. State of Kerala (Decided on 19.06.2025) (Decided by Justice V.G. Arun) held that Police authorities are not empowered to enter...
- [DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES SEIZED IN NDPS CASES MUST BE THROUGH NDPS FRAMEWORK, NOT CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/disposal-of-vehicles-seized-in-ndps-cases-must-be-through-ndps-framework-not-crpc/) - I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE In the case of R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu [Crl.A. (MD) No.192 of 2024] (Decided on 09.07.2025) (Judgement by- B. Pugalendhi, J.), filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Appellant sought release of a lorry seized during a 2021 NDPS investigation. The vehicle had been In the case of R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu [Crl.A. (MD) No.192 of 2024] (Decided on 09.07.2025) (Judgement by- B. Pugalendhi, J.), filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras...
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT MERE PRESENCE OF VICTIM’S BLOOD GROUP ON THE WEAPON IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-mere-presence-of-victims-blood-group-on-the-weapon-is-not-a-sufficient-ground-to-convict-the-accused/) - Introduction: Criminal jurisprudence requires that the guilt of the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases where the conviction is solely based upon circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman [(Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2017), decided on 19.06.2025] reiterating this principle, dismissed the Appeal filed Criminal jurisprudence requires that the guilt of the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases where the conviction is solely based upon circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan...
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PROSPECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF RBI’S 2020 PENSION SCHEME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-prospective-implementation-of-rbis-2020-pension-scheme/) - The Judgment in the Case of “The Reserve Bank of India v. M.T. Mani and Another” CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13962 OF 2024was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih on 23rd May 2025. Facts of the Case: In this Case, The Judgment in the Case of “The Reserve Bank of India v. M.T. Mani and Another” CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13962 OF 2024was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India....
- [MP HIGH COURT DISCUSSES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘BRUTAL’ AND ‘BARBARIC’ ACT IN RAPE CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/mp-high-court-discusses-the-distinction-between-brutal-and-barbaric-act-in-rape-cases/) - The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while hearing a criminal appeal titled Rajaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4416, challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Khandwa, for the rape and attempted murder of a four-year-old child under various provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act, The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while hearing a criminal appeal titled Rajaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4416, challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Special Judge...
- [A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF FRAUD MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE AN ARBITRATOR CAN BE IMPLEADED IN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 36(2): CALCUTTA HC HOLDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-prima-facie-case-of-fraud-must-be-established-before-an-arbitrator-can-be-impleaded-in-application-under-section-362-calcutta-hc-holds/) - In a recent judgment delivered on June 19, 2025, the Calcutta High Court in the case titled West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. TATA Motors Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4969, examined whether an arbitrator accused of bias could be impleaded in proceedings seeking an unconditional stay of an Arbitral Award under Section 36(2) In a recent judgment delivered on June 19, 2025, the Calcutta High Court in the case titled West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. TATA Motors Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4969.....
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF U.P. GANGSTERS ACT: SINGLE INCIDENT OF COMMUNAL VIOLENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE DRACONIAN STATUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-u-p-gangsters-act-single-incident-of-communal-violence-not-sufficient-to-invoke-draconian-statute/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant Judgment aimed at curbing the overreach of preventive detention laws, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [SLP (Criminal) No. 6607 of 2023, decided on 14.05.2025], allowed the appeal and quashed an FIR registered under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
- [BETWEEN CLOSURE AND COMPROMISE: STUDY OF DELHI HIGH COURT’S DECISION TO QUASH FIR IN MINOR’S SEXUAL EXPLOITATION CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/between-closure-and-compromise-study-of-delhi-high-courts-decision-to-quash-fir-in-minors-sexual-exploitation-case/) - In the case of X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4045), (decided on 27.05.2025), the Delhi High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) to quash an FIR containing serious allegations under Sections 354, 354C, 384,
- [RIGHT TO CLOSE vs. DUTY TO JUSTIFY: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SECTION 25-O OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT 1947](https://theindianlawyer.in/right-to-close-vs-duty-to-justify-supreme-court-clarifies-section-25-o-of-the-industrial-dispute-act-1947/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural requirements under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Supreme Court, by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) v. State of Maharashtra(Arising out of SLP(C)No.4268 of 2023), decided on 4 June 2025), held
- [ABSCONDENCE AND PRESUMPTION: A JUDICIAL LENS ON POST-CRIME CONDUCT](https://theindianlawyer.in/abscondence-and-presumption-a-judicial-lens-on-post-crime-conduct/) - INTRODUCTION The case of Chetan vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013) decided by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court on 30.05.2025, is concerned with the conviction of the Appellant for the murder of Deceased. The conviction of the Appellant in the case was based on circumstantial
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIRECTS SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TO VACATE THE PARENTS’ PROPERTY UPHOLDING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-directs-son-and-daughter-in-law-to-vacate-the-parents-property-upholding-the-legislative-intent-behind-senior-citizens-act/) - Introduction A Bombay High Court Bench, on 18th June, 2025, decided a petition filed by senior citizen parents seeking to challenge an order of the Appellate Tribunal passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter ‘The Act’). The dispute centers around the Petitioners' efforts to evict their son and
- [AstraZeneca AB Vs. Intas Pharma:Species patents following a Markush patent must demonstrate a distinct inventive step](https://theindianlawyer.in/astrazeneca-ab-vs-intas-pharmaspecies-patents-following-a-markush-patent-must-demonstrate-a-distinct-inventive-step/) - Introduction The AstraZeneca AB & Anr. Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited case, decided on July 20, 2021, by the High Court of Delhi, represents a pivotal moment in Indian patent jurisprudence, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. This dispute centered on the validity and infringement of patents covering Dapagliflozin (DAPA), a critical drug for managing type-II diabetes
- [Summer Break Announcement!](https://theindianlawyer.in/summer-break-announcement/) - We're taking a short break! No new articles will be published on 28th June 2025, as our team will be on summer holidays From 21st June to 30th June 2025. We’ll be back soon with more updates and insights!— The Indian Lawyer Team
- [THE DILEMMA BETWEEN ENVIROMENTAL CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC WELFARE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-dilemma-between-enviromental-conservation-and-development-for-public-welfare-before-the-supreme-court/) - Introduction On May 30th, 2025, a Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Kotiswar Singh decided the case titled “Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors. SLP (C) No.29048/2018”. This case pertains to transformation of Khajuria Lake, a traditionally significant water body
- [BEYOND BINARY: THE KERALA HIGH COURT’S STAND FOR TRANSGENDER PARENTAL RECOGNITION](https://theindianlawyer.in/beyond-binary-the-kerala-high-courts-stand-for-transgender-parental-recognition/) - Introduction In Zahhad v. State of Kerala (WP(C) NO. 23763 OF 2023), Justice Ziyad Rahman of the Kerala High Court gave a revolutionary Judgement with respect to the rights of transgender persons, and their recognition as parents without sticking to binary gender roles. The case revolves around whether the birth certificate of a child born
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CANCELLATION OF LAND ALLOTMENT TO CHARITABLE TRUST](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-cancellation-of-land-allotment-to-charitable-trust/) - The Judgment in the Case of “Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust &Anr. v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors” Civil Appeal Nos. ________ / 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31887-88/2017)was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on
- [SUPREME COURT SLAMS UNION BANK FOR ISSUING CHARGE SHEET WITHOUT CVC ADVICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-slams-union-bank-for-issuing-charge-sheet-without-cvc-advice/) - The Judgment in the Case of “A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.CIVIL APPEAL NO.7039 OF 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.26933 of 2019)was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masihon 20th May 2025. This
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS BAR ON FORCED NARCO TEST: VIOLATES ARTICLES 20(3) AND 21](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-bar-on-forced-narco-test-violates-articles-203-and-21/) - INTRODUCTION In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional rights, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [SLP(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024], (Date of Judgement- 9 June 2025), has reiterated that no individual can be subjected to narco-analysis tests
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES PREVENTIVE DETENTION UNDER KAAPA: UPHOLDS LIBERTY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL BULWARK](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-preventive-detention-under-kaapa-upholds-liberty-as-a-constitutional-bulwark/) - In a landmark decision reinforcing the constitutional mandate of personal liberty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala (Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025, decided on 06.06.2025) set aside the Judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the preventive detention of one Rajesh under Section 3
- [USE OF DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR PACKAGING, FONTS, AND COLORS CONSTITUTES NOT ONLY INFRINGEMENT BUT ALSO PASSING OFF](https://theindianlawyer.in/use-of-deceptively-similar-packaging-fonts-and-colors-constitutes-not-only-infringement-but-also-passing-off/) - Introduction: Trademark conflicts in the consumer appliances sector have seen a surge with increasing brand consciousness and aggressive marketing tactics. The case of Maya Appliances Private Limited vs Vibrant Concepts And Designs is a classic example that draws attention to the nuances of prior use, deceptive similarity, and goodwill associated with trademarks. It reflects how
- [PRESUMPTION CANNOT REPLACE PROOF: SUPREME COURT ON THE LIMITS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS](https://theindianlawyer.in/presumption-cannot-replace-proof-supreme-court-on-the-limits-of-circumstantial-evidence-in-criminal-trials/) - The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1463 of 2012, decided on 04.06.2025), acquitted a student previously convicted of murdering his friend, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence. The case, which relied primarily on the Accused’s
- [IN A 2:1 MAJORITY SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT AIR FORCE SCHOOLS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF ‘STATE’ UNDER ARTICLE 12](https://theindianlawyer.in/in-a-21-majority-supreme-court-holds-that-air-force-schools-do-not-fall-under-the-ambit-of-state-under-article-12/) - Introduction On May 21st, 2025, the Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Masih, Justice Oka, Justice Amanullah, dismissed the appeals arising out of the Decision of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, while holding that the Air Force School will not fall under the definition of ‘State or authority’ under Article 12
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON LEGALITY OF CORPUS FUND FROM NRI FEES IN KERALA MEDICAL COLLEGES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-legality-of-corpus-fund-from-nri-fees-in-kerala-medical-colleges/) - The Judgment in the Case of “The State of Kerala and Ors. v. The Principal, KMCT Medical College and Ors” Civil Appeal No. ___ / 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9885 – 9888 / 2020) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya
- [REDEFINING CONSENT WITHIN MARRIAGE: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF UNNATURAL OFFENCES AND CRUELTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/redefining-consent-within-marriage-a-legal-analysis-of-unnatural-offences-and-cruelty/) - Introduction In Banti Jatav v. State of M.P (Misc Criminal Case No. 32576 of 2024) before Justice G.S. Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, A Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR, in Gwalior. The Accused was charged under offences punishable under Section 377, Section 323, Section
- [TESTING THE BOUNDARIES OF TRADEMARK LAW: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TRADEMARK DOCTRINES](https://theindianlawyer.in/testing-the-boundaries-of-trademark-law-a-critical-examination-of-trademark-doctrines/) - Introduction In the Case of Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Aggarwal [FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024 & CM No.46175/2024 & 52564/2024] a Division Bench (consisting of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta) of the Delhi High Court laid down certain principles regarding trademark infringement on 23 May 2025. The case is about a trademark infringement between
- [LEVY OF EVACUATION FACILITY CHARGES AS ‘CHANGE IN LAW’ UNDER POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/levy-of-evacuation-facility-charges-as-change-in-law-under-power-purchase-agreement/) - The Judgment in the Case of “Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4336 OF 2025 (Arising out of CIVIL APPEAL DIARY NO. 26876 OF 2024) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice
- [Understanding the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: A New Era for Waqf Administration in India](https://theindianlawyer.in/understanding-the-waqf-amendment-act-2025-a-new-era-for-waqf-administration-in-india/) - A Landmark Legislative Overhaul Proises Modernization Amidst Debate The landscape of Waqf administration in India is set for a significant transformation with the enactment of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, also now amended as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act (UMEED Act). This legislation, which received Presidential assent on April 5, 2025,
- [SUPREME COURT SETTLES THE LAW: HIGH COURTS CAN QUASH DV COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 12 USING INHERENT POWERS UNDER CRPC / BNSS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-settles-the-law-high-courts-can-quash-dv-complaints-under-section-12-using-inherent-powers-under-crpc-bnss/) - In a landmark Judgment delivered on May 19, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Courts are empowered to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) by exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now codified
- [SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATE HAS THE POWER TO LEVY DEMANDS UNDER THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-that-state-has-the-power-to-levy-demands-under-the-mines-and-minerals-development-and-regulation-act-1957/) - INTRODUCTION In Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.12314 of 2024) (decided by the Supreme Court of India on 23rd May 2025 relating to the question of levy of additional amounts sought to be collected from an individual granted mining rights for the minor minerals in the District Mineral Foundation
- [CAN THE HIGH COURTS ENHANCE THE SENTENCE OF CONVICTION WHILE DECIDING AN APPEAL BY CONVICT? : SUPREME COURT ANSWERS IN NEGATIVE](https://theindianlawyer.in/can-the-high-courts-enhance-the-sentence-of-conviction-while-deciding-an-appeal-by-convict-supreme-court-answers-in-negative/) - Introduction On 4th June, 2025, a Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court, presided by Justice S C Sharma and Justice Nagarathna, allowed an appeal arising out of an Order of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case titled Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025) (Date of
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS JUVENILITY AND BAIL IN A MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-juvenility-and-bail-in-a-murder-case/) - The Judgment in the case of Rajni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11233 of 2022), along with Criminal Appeal No. 2569 of 2025, was delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- [SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS MAINTAINABILITY OF PARTITION SUIT IN PRESENCE OF BENAMI ALLEGATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-affirms-maintainability-of-partition-suit-in-presence-of-benami-allegations/) - The Judgment in the Case of Smt. Shaifali Gupta vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4673 of 2023, and Deepak Lalchandani vs. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4674 of 2023 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising
- [REINSTATING THE 3 YEAR PRACTICE AS AN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA](https://theindianlawyer.in/reinstating-the-3-year-practice-as-an-eligibility-criteria/) - INTRODUCTION In All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court diligently analyzed the eligibility criteria for sitting in the Civil Judges' Exam. The Bench directed thatcandidates appearing in theCivil Judge (Junior Division) Examination must have at least three years working experience. This reversed the2002 Ruling that allowed the recent law graduates
- [A Paradigm Shift in Justice: Supreme Court Prioritizes Victim Welfare Over Punishment in Adolescent POCSO Case](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-paradigm-shift-in-justice-supreme-court-prioritizes-victim-welfare-over-punishment-in-adolescent-pocso-case/) - The Supreme Court of India in a landmark decision dated May 23, 2025, in the case of In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024), took an extraordinary step by choosing not to sentence a convicted Accused under the Protection of Children from
- [SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO TACKLE ALARMING RISE IN CHILD RAPE CASES UNDER POCSO ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-issues-directions-to-tackle-alarming-rise-in-child-rape-cases-under-pocso-act/) - The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, deeply concerned about the increasing number of reported child rape cases in the country, initiated a Suo Moto Writ Petition on May 15th 2025, titled "In Re Alarming Rise In The Number Of Reported Child
- [SUPREME COURT DENIES BAIL TO KABIR TALWAR IN HEROIN SMUGGLING CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-denies-bail-to-kabir-talwar-in-heroin-smuggling-case/) - The Judgment in the Case of Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. The State of Gujarat through National Investigating Agency, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ____/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8878/2024) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kantand Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on 13th
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ENCHASHMENT OF BANK GUARANTEES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PAYMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-enchashment-of-bank-guarantees-does-not-amount-to-payment-of-custom-duty/) - Introduction On 19th May, 2025, a two judge bench, presided by Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan, decided the Appeal titled M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) v. Union of India and Ors .(Civil Appeal Nos. 3833-3835 of 2025) This case concerns a long-standing dispute between M/s M.P. Glychem Industries
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS THAT RETIRED PARTNERS OF REGISTERED FIRMS MUST AHDERE TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT TO AVOID LIABLITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-that-retired-partners-of-registered-firms-must-ahdere-to-statutory-requirements-under-the-partnership-act-to-avoid-liablity/) - In a significant Supreme Court ruling that reiterates the statutory requirements for a partner’s effective retirement from a registered firm, a Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih in the matter of Shivappa Reddy v. S. Srinivasan (Criminal Appeal No. 4363 of 2024)(Date of Judgement- 19.05.2025) set aside the Karnataka
- [Understanding India’s Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: A Journey Through Ethics and Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/understanding-indias-surrogacy-regulation-act-2021-a-journey-through-ethics-and-law/) - For years, India stood as a prominent global destination for surrogacy, a phenomenon driven by lower costs, the availability of surrogate mothers, and an initially permissive legal environment. However, this largely unregulated landscape, while offering a path to parenthood for many, became increasingly fraught with ethical concerns, primarily the exploitation of economically vulnerable women
- [DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURT ATTACKS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE RULE OF LAW: SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/disobedience-of-the-orders-passed-by-the-court-attacks-the-very-foundation-of-the-rule-of-law-supreme-court/) - Introduction On May 9, 2025, A two judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Masih and Justice Gavai, while deciding the case “Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateshwarlu and Others etc.” arising out of Contempt Petitions, highlighted how defying orders passed by a Court attacks the very core of Rule of Law and
- [Supreme Court Reinforces Arbitration Mandate in Trademark Dispute](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reinforces-arbitration-mandate-in-trademark-dispute/) - In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of K. Mangayarkarasi & Anr. v. N.J. Sundaresan & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13012 of 2025), has clearly upheld the primacy of arbitration agreements, even in disputes that involve allegations of fraud and trademark rights. The judgment, delivered by Justice J.B.
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CONDITIONAL ALLOTMENT UNDER STATUTORY SCHEME IS NOT A SALE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-conditional-allotment-under-statutory-scheme-is-not-a-sale-2/) - The Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted under Section 302 IPC, holding that the "last seen together" theory, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient for conviction. The Bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjay Karol, in the matter of Padman Bibhar Vs State of Orissa (2025 INSC 751) (SLP (Criminal) No. 17440 of 2024)
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CONDITIONAL ALLOTMENT UNDER STATUTORY SCHEME IS NOT A SALE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-conditional-allotment-under-statutory-scheme-is-not-a-sale/) - The Judgment in the Case of The State of Telangana & Ors. vs. Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust, Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25818 of 2023) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
- [The Role of Technology in Modern Trials](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-role-of-technology-in-modern-trials/) - With the changing times of court trials, technology has become an integral part of contemporary trials. Right from case preparation to presentation in the courtroom, technology is crucial in determining the way trials are being held. The use of digital media has not only speeded up the trials but also eased the entire process and
- [Allegation Of Political Vendetta In Itself Not Sufficient To Grant Anticipatory Bail: SC](https://theindianlawyer.in/allegation-of-political-vendetta-in-itself-not-sufficient-to-grant-anticipatory-bail-sc/) - It is certainly in the fitness of things that while displaying zero tolerance for corruption, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs State of AP in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7532 of 2025 With SLP (Cri.) No. 7533/2025 & SLP (Cri.) No.
- [Phonetic similarity alone could be sufficient to establish deceptive similarity](https://theindianlawyer.in/phonetic-similarity-alone-could-be-sufficient-to-establish-deceptive-similarity/) - Introduction: The case of K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs. Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr., decided by the Supreme Court of India on April 14, 1969, is a landmark judgment concerning trademark law, particularly regarding phonetic similarity and deceptive resemblance. The appellant, K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar, sought registration of a trademark containing the name
- [A CURSORY VIEW INSUFFICIENT IN DETERMINING THE GUILT UNDER 498A AND DOWRY ACT: SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-cursory-view-insufficient-in-determining-the-guilt-under-498a-and-dowry-act-supreme-court/) - The Apex Court on May 13, 2025, while deciding an appeal titled “Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (Crl) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019”, arising out of a wife’s complaint against husband and in-laws alleging harassment on pretext of dowry, emphasized that such allegations cannot be vague and bereft of evidence. The bench of
- [JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MUST REMAIN OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND LEGITIMATE CRITIQUE; SUB JUDICE MATTERS MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION BY THE PRESS AND PUBLIC](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-proceedings-must-remain-open-to-public-discourse-and-legitimate-critique-sub-judice-matters-may-also-be-subject-to-discussion-by-the-press-and-public/) - On Friday, May 9, The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently overturned a Delhi High Court order that had directed the removal of a Wikipedia page concerning defamation proceedings initiated by the news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia. The High Court had found the page to be prima facie contemptuous and potentially interfering with ongoing
- [Reinforcing Accountability: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction for Facilitating Concealment of Disproportionate Assets](https://theindianlawyer.in/reinforcing-accountability-supreme-court-affirms-conviction-for-facilitating-concealment-of-disproportionate-assets/) - Introduction In a landmark ruling on corruption and abetment, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in the case of P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State [SLP(Criminal) No. 3472 of 2018]. The Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant, P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, for abetting her husband in acquiring assets that were disproportionate to his known
- [Reinforcing the Standard of Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Revenue Inspector in Corruption Case Due to Insufficient Evidence](https://theindianlawyer.in/reinforcing-the-standard-of-proof-supreme-court-acquits-revenue-inspector-in-corruption-case-due-to-insufficient-evidence/) - Introduction In a landmark decision dated May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana [SLP(Criminal) No. 6066 of 2024] acquitted the Appellant, Paritala Sudhakar, a former Revenue Inspector, of bribery charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Overturning the convictions upheld by the Trial court and the High Court,
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CHARGESHEET IN ABETMENT OF SUICIDE CASE FOR LACK OF PROXIMATE INSTIGATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-chargesheet-in-abetment-of-suicide-case-for-lack-of-proximate-instigation/) - The Judgment in the Case of Shenbagavalli And Ors. Vs.The Inspector Of Police, Kancheepuram District And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 4268 and 4269 of 2024 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih on 30th April 2025. This case deals
- [SC ISSUES NEW GUIDELINES FOR SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/sc-issues-new-guidelines-for-senior-advocate-designations/) - In a major overhaul and major revisit of the senior designation process of advocates, we see that the Supreme Court has once again stepped forward in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025
- [India-Pakistan Conflict 2025: Legal Dimensions and Regional Implications](https://theindianlawyer.in/india-pakistan-conflict-2025-legal-dimensions-and-regional-implications/) - Introduction The India-Pakistan relationship has been stressful for both countries since 1947 because of the Kashmir. The recent escalation, marked by the deadly Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, and India’s retaliatory “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, 2025, has brought the conflict into sharp focus. This article explores the legal aspects of the ongoing
- [NO REFUGE FOR UNAUTHORIZED BUILDINGS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STRICT DEMOLITION AND EVICTION TIMELINES](https://theindianlawyer.in/no-refuge-for-unauthorized-buildings-supreme-court-upholds-strict-demolition-and-eviction-timelines/) - BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The case of Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin&Ors. (SLP(C) No. 12199-12200/2025) originated from a public interest litigation addressed by the High Court, which tackled unauthorized constructions. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, ordered the police to issue notices to occupants of the premises to vacate by April 30, 2025, with eviction to
- [TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENTS ARE O&M, NOT CAPITAL WORKS: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CERC TARIFF REGULATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/transformer-replacements-are-om-not-capital-works-supreme-court-clarifies-cerc-tariff-regulations/) - BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The Case of Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission &Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 5857-5858 of 2011) arose from a dispute over the capitalization of costs incurred by Powergrid Corporation of India Limited (Powergrid), a public sector undertaking responsible for electricity transmission, following the emergency replacement of damaged Inter-connecting Transformers
- [Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Granting Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences: SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-emphasizes-caution-in-granting-anticipatory-bail-in-economic-offences-sfio-vs-aditya-sarda/) - The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) vs. Aditya Sarda, decided on April 9, 2025, addressed the issue of granting anticipatory bail in serious economic offences. The Apex Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON INSURER’S LIABILITY IN TRACTOR-TRAILER ACCIDENT CLAIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-insurers-liability-in-tractor-trailer-accident-claim/) - The Judgment in the Case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2135 OF 2023] was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on 5th May
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS TRIAL COURT’S POWER TO SUMMON ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-trial-courts-power-to-summon-accused/) - In a significant ruling that reinforces the judicial authority to summon additional accused during trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2025 INSC 634, (SLP (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2024), decided on 6th May, 2025, clarified the evidentiary threshold for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
- [A slight modification of an existing design does not confer exclusive rights.](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-slight-modification-of-an-existing-design-does-not-confer-exclusive-rights-author-imageajay-amitabh-suman/) - Introduction: The case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare vs. Amigo Brushes Private Limited & Anr. revolves around an alleged infringement of a registered toothbrush design. The plaintiff, a global healthcare company, sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale toothbrushes that were claimed to be an obvious and fraudulent
- [Stop Insulting Constitution By Denying West UP Even A Single High Court Bench](https://theindianlawyer.in/stop-insulting-constitution-by-denying-west-up-even-a-single-high-court-bench/) - If we jog our memory a little back, we can recall how even the then former UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon while he was UN Secretary General had slammed UP as “rape and crime capital of India”! At first blush, even a layman can point out effortlessly that which State in India needs multiple
- [Supreme Court Restores FIR in Property Dispute: Emphasizes Comprehensive Investigation in Cross FIR Cases](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-restores-fir-in-property-dispute-emphasizes-comprehensive-investigation-in-cross-fir-cases/) - A Two Judge Bench comprising of Judges Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed a Judgment dated April 29,2025 in the case of Punit Beriwala vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11042 of 2022 wherein the Supreme Court
- [Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Cases Involving Disputed Limitation and Power of Attorney](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-in-cases-involving-disputed-limitation-and-power-of-attorney/) - A Two Judge Bench comprising of Judges Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a Judgment dated April 29,2025 in the case of P.Kumarakurubaran Versus P.Narayana & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 [ Arising from SLP (C ) No. 2549 of 2021] wherein the Supreme Court held that reinforces the principle that
- [THE CONSIDERATION CONUNDRUM; SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS NEW JURISDICTIONAL RULES IN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-consideration-conundrum-supreme-court-upholds-new-jurisdictional-rules-in-consumer-protection-act/) - On April 29 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, delivered its judgment in Rutu Mihir Panchal &Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 282 of 2021 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1738 of 2022). The case examined the constitutionality of
- [HOLDING HANDS OF FEMALE STUDENTS IN COMPUTER LAB WHILE USING MOUSE CLEARLY FALL UNDER POCSO ACT: SC](https://theindianlawyer.in/holding-hands-of-female-students-in-computer-lab-while-using-mouse-clearly-fall-under-pocso-act-sc/) - While taking a very grim view of a teacher holding the hands of female students, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X etc vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 12563-12566 of 2022) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES LIMITS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-limits-of-criminal-prosecution-in-contractual-disputes/) - The Judgment in the Case of Aaditya Khaitan & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15413 of 2023), was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Sudhanushu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran Ujjal Bhuyan on 28th,
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES IMPOSITION OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN DELAYED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-imposition-of-liquidated-damages-in-delayed-construction-contracts/) - The Judgment in the Case of Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks of India (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5383 OF 2024), was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 28th, April 2025. The case primarily discusses the legality and
- [ABOLISH MERCY PETITION FOR TERRORISTS AND AMEND TERROR LAWS](https://theindianlawyer.in/abolish-mercy-petition-for-terrorists-and-amend-terror-laws/) - It is definitely a national disgrace which we must boldly acknowledge now that Pakistan has been waging low intensity terror war against India since last more than four decades yet we see no Indian leader like late Mrs Indira Gandhi who in 1971 when she had been in power for very short time struck deep
- [Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown: Ramanuj Kumar vs. Priyanka (2025)](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-dissolves-marriage-on-grounds-of-irretrievable-breakdown-ramanuj-kumar-vs-priyanka-2025/) - A Three Judge Bench comprising of Judges Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Saneep Mehta passed a judgment dated April 22,2025 in the case of Ramanuj Kumar vs Priyanka Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024wherein the Supreme Court held that if the marriage had reached a point of no return due to prolonged hostility,
- [Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Competent Authority under MOFA in Deemed Conveyance Cases Involving Third-Party Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-limits-of-competent-authority-under-mofa-in-deemed-conveyance-cases-involving-third-party-rights/) - The Judgment in the Case of Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5377 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5432 of 2021), was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka and
- [Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Land Acquisition Dispute](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-enhances-compensation-in-land-acquisition-dispute/) - The Judgment in the Case of Barla Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana & Connected Appeals (Civil Appeal No. __________ 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3150 - 3151 / 2023), was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal
- [Understanding Property Law: A Guide for Homeowners and Residents](https://theindianlawyer.in/understanding-property-law-a-guide-for-homeowners-and-residents-2/) - Modern society's cornerstone of homeownership and resident rights is property law. Knowing these ideas will help you negotiate real estate deals, settle conflicts, and properly defend your interests. From buying and financing to refurbishment and final sale, property law affects almost all elements of homeownership. Understanding these ideas helps you to avoid expensive legal traps,
- [Anticipatory Bail Maintainable under BNSS for Gangster Act Case Initiated Before 1 July 2024: Allahabad High Court](https://theindianlawyer.in/anticipatory-bail-maintainable-under-bnss-for-gangster-act-case-initiated-before-1-july-2024-allahabad-high-court/) - Anticipatory Bail Maintainable under BNSS for Gangster Act Case Initiated Before 1 July 2024: Allahabad High Court It is most reassuring, most refreshing and so also most rejuvenating to note that while striking the right chord, the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA TO SEBI PROCEEDINGS AND INVESTOR COMPENSATION CLAIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-applicability-of-res-judicata-to-sebi-proceedings-and-investor-compensation-claims/) - The Judgment in the Case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Ram Kishori Gupta & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 7941 of 2019 with Civil Appeal Nos. 1649-1652 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2025 (@ Diary No. 42829 of 2019) was delivered by Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India,
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON HEREDITARY APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SERVICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-hereditary-appointments-in-public-service/) - The Judgment in the Case of Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18983 of 2023) was delivered by Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna on 2nd April 2025.This judgment
- [Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Company Director: Emphasizes Need for Prosecuting Company in Offences Involving Vicarious Liability  ](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-against-company-director-emphasizes-need-for-prosecuting-company-in-offences-involving-vicarious-liability/) - A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a judgment dated April 16,2025 in the case of S.C. Garg Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2018 wherein the Supreme Court held that prosecution of a company’s officer under Section
- [Effect of dynamic effect: Trademark, Design and Patent Revocation Petitions](https://theindianlawyer.in/effect-of-dynamic-effect-trademark-design-and-patent-revocation-petitions/) - Introduction:The concept of dynamic effect has played a crucial role in determining the jurisdiction of High Courts in intellectual property disputes, particularly in trademark rectification, design cancellation, and patent revocation petitions. Courts have examined whether the impact of an intellectual property right beyond its place of registration can justify jurisdiction in a different High Court.
- [THE ANCILLARY RELIEFS CANNOT BE ENFORCED ONCE THE PRIMARY RELIEF HAS BEEN DECLARED TO BE TIME-BARRED.](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-ancillary-reliefs-cannot-be-enforced-once-the-primary-relief-has-been-declared-to-be-time-barred/) - The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principle of law which states that the Ancillary reliefs cannot be enforced in a situation where the primary reliefs claimed have been declared to be time-barred. In legal sense, ancillary relief refers to the financial provision and property adjustment orders made during divorce, separation, or nullity proceedings. They
- [TRADEMARK RECTIFICATION HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER WHICH TRADEMARK REGISTRY, GRANTING TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IS SITUATED](https://theindianlawyer.in/trademark-rectification-has-to-be-filed-before-the-high-court-under-which-trademark-registry-granting-trademark-registration-is-situated/) - Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation. Fact of the Case: Chunulal Seetaram filed an appeal
- [Understanding Property Law: A Guide for Homeowners and Residents](https://theindianlawyer.in/understanding-property-law-a-guide-for-homeowners-and-residents/) - Modern society's cornerstone of homeownership and resident rights is property law. Knowing these ideas will help you negotiate real estate deals, settle conflicts, and properly defend your interests. From buying and financing to refurbishment and final sale, property law affects almost all elements of homeownership. Understanding these ideas helps you to avoid expensive legal traps,
- [ANTICIPATORY BAIL SHOULD BE GRANTED SPARINGLY IN ECONOMIC OFFENCES CASES: SC](https://theindianlawyer.in/anticipatory-bail-should-be-granted-sparingly-in-economic-offences-cases-sc/) - It is definitely in the fitness of things that while taking economic offences cases very seriously, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Aditya Sarda in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation
- [PLEADING AND EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CONCISE TO THE CAUSE AND MUST NOT CONFUSE THE CAUSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/pleading-and-evidence-should-be-concise-to-the-cause-and-must-not-confuse-the-cause/) - With the growing trend of use of AI in the professional world, it is just a matter of time that such AI tools would be incorporated by legal professionals for drafting the matters to be filed before a Court of law. One such incident was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, in the matter
- [UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, NO PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REQUIRED IF F.I.R IS BASED ON A DETAILED SOURCE REPORT](https://theindianlawyer.in/under-the-prevention-of-corruption-act-no-preliminary-enquiry-required-if-f-i-r-is-based-on-a-detailed-source-report/) - The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs Sri Channakleshava HD & Anr (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16212 of 2024) has laid down the principle revolving the requirement of a preliminary enquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein FIR is based upon an in-depth source report. The Bench comprised ofJustice
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS EVICTION DECREE UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC: REITERATES NON-CONSIDERATION OF NEW PLEAS NOT RAISED BEFORE LOWER COURTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-eviction-decree-under-order-xii-rule-6-cpc-reiterates-non-consideration-of-new-pleas-not-raised-before-lower-courts/) - A Division Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a Judgment dated 07.04.2025 in the case of Rajiv Ghosh vs Satya Naryan Jaiswal SLP (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025 wherein the Supreme Courtupheld the Judgment of High Court on Order XII Rule 6 and also held that is a
- [SUPREME COURT RULES SALE DEED REGISTRATION CANNOT BE DENIED FOR LACK OF TITLE PROOF](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-sale-deed-registration-cannot-be-denied-for-lack-of-title-proof/) - The Judgment in the Case of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025, as delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 7th April 2025. This Case primarily deals with the power of the registering
- [SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS INSURANCE CONDITIONS IN MARINE CONTRACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-interprets-insurance-conditions-in-marine-contracts/) - The Judgment in the Case of Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &Anr, Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2021,was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on 7th April 2025.This Case primarily deals with the interpretation
- [REJECTION OF A PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC BASED ON THE DEFECT OF LIMITATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/rejection-of-a-plaint-under-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-based-on-the-defect-of-limitation/) - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. vs. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2137 of 2025) recently examined the question of limitation with respect to Plaint being rejected. The Court had laid it’s emphasis on deciphering the appropriate point of time from where the
- [MERE EXCESS OR OVERREACH IN PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY DOESN’T DISENTITLE PUBLIC SERVANT FROM STATUTORY PROTECTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/mere-excess-or-overreach-in-performance-of-official-duty-doesnt-disentitle-public-servant-from-statutory-protection/) - The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram (Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2025), had discussed the issue of whether public servants, especially police personnel, are entitled to statutory protection under Sec 197 of the CrPC and Sec 170 of the Karnataka Police Act when their act surpassed
- [Supreme Court Upholds Financial Viability Requirement for Registration of Co-operative Societies](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-financial-viability-requirement-for-registration-of-co-operative-societies/) - A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Verale passed a Judgment dated April 2,2025 in the case of Shri. Masaidevi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit Warewadi Versus the State of Maharashtra & Ors. SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4090 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court upheld the
- [SUPREME COURT RULES COMMERCIAL DISPUTE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CHEATING UNDER SECTION 420 IPC IN COAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-commercial-dispute-does-not-constitute-cheating-under-section-420-ipc-in-coal-supply-agreement/) - The Judgment in the Caseof Manish v. State of Maharashtra & AnotherCriminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10931 of 2022)was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimhaand Justice Joymalya Bagchionon 2nd April 2025. This Case deals with whether a
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON PENSION ELIGIBILITY OF DISMISSED EMPLOYEE UNDER UCO BANK REGULATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-pension-eligibility-of-dismissed-employee-under-uco-bank-regulations/) - The Judgment in the Case of UCO Bank & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Handa, Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2024, was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyanon 3rd April 2025. This Judgment examines the interplay between Regulation 22 and Clause
- [Clarification of Limitation Period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by Supreme Court](https://theindianlawyer.in/clarification-of-limitation-period-under-section-343-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-by-supreme-court/) - A two-judge bench consisting of Judges Pamidighantam Shri Narsimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a judgment dated April 3,2025 in the case of M/S R.K.Transport Company versus M/S Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (BALCO) Civil Appeal No. 4763 of 2025 arising out of SLP ( C) No. 26489 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court interpreted
- [Eminent Domain and the Sovereign Power of the State: Analysing the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board Case](https://theindianlawyer.in/eminent-domain-and-the-sovereign-power-of-the-state-analysing-the-delhi-agricultural-marketing-board-case/) - A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a judgment dated 20.03.2025 in the case of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board through its Chairman Versus Bhagwan Devi (Dead) through her L.R. Civil Appeal No. 10757 of 2017 wherein the Supreme Court held that the
- [SC UPHOLDS MURDER CONVICTION, ADDRESSES EVIDENCE AND REMISSION PLEA](https://theindianlawyer.in/sc-upholds-murder-conviction-addresses-evidence-and-remission-plea/) - The Judgment in the Case of Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2013, was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih on 24.03.2025. This Judgment deals with the conviction of the
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON FAIR COMPENSATION FOR ACQUIRED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN LAND ACQUISITION CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-fair-compensation-for-acquired-agricultural-land-in-land-acquisition-case/) - The Judgment in the Case of Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Anr. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14670 OF 2015 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti on March 25,
- [Settlement of Disputes in Real Estate Transactions: A Case Analysis of Akshay Gupta & Ors. Vs ICICI & Ors. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court](https://theindianlawyer.in/settlement-of-disputes-in-real-estate-transactions-a-case-analysis-of-akshay-gupta-ors-vs-icici-ors-by-the-honble-supreme-court/) - The Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justices Vikram Nath & Sanjay Karol passed a judgment dated March 25,2025 in case of Akshay Gupta &ors. Vs ICICI &Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1708 of 2023 wherein the Supreme Court appreciated the commercial arrangement for amicable settlement of disputes between Borrowers i.e. Flat
- [SUPREME COURT FINES LITIGANT FOR APPROACHING THE COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-fines-litigant-for-approaching-the-court-with-unclean-hands/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar in the matter of Leelawati (dead) through Lrs. v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1438 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16536 of 2016) dismissed the Appeal and held
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS COURTS CANNOT REWRITE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY LAW.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-courts-cannot-rewrite-statutory-provisions-or-introduce-additional-procedural-safeguards-that-are-not-contemplated-by-law/) - A Two Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a judgement dated 17.03.2025 in the matter ofPradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat and Ors. SLP (Crl.) 3154 of 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed significant issues concerning the registration
- [Supreme Court’s Ruling on Limitation Period in Cases Involving Cancellation of Power of Attorney](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-courts-ruling-on-limitation-period-in-cases-involving-cancellation-of-power-of-attorney/) - A Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran passed a judgment dated March 03,2025 in the case of V.Ravikumar vs. S.Kumar SLP (Civil ) No. 9472 of 2023 wherein the Supreme Court held that if the power of attorney is subsequently cancelled, it will have no effect
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS STATE GOVERNMENTS TO CONSIDER POLICIES FOR REGULATING PRIVATE HOSPITAL PRICING PRACTICES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-state-governments-to-consider-policies-for-regulating-private-hospital-pricing-practices/) - The Judgment in the Case of Siddharth Dalmia & ANR vs Union of India & ORS. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No. 337 of 2018 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on March 04, 2025. The case primarily
- [SUPREME COURT DETERMINES LAW THAT GOVERNS ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-determines-law-that-governs-arbitration-agreements/) - A Three Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a judgement dated 18.03.2025 in the matter of Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited(ARB. P. No. 48 of 2023), addressing critical issues concerning the jurisdiction and procedural aspects
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY FOR CHEQUE BOUNCE DURING INSOLVENCY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-directors-liability-for-cheque-bounce-during-insolvency/) - The Judgment in the Case of Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s Shakti Trading Company CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.1104 OF 2022was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Courtof India comprising Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullahon March 17, 2025.The case primarily deals with the interplay between
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS ALIBI, UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN LAND DISPUTE MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-alibi-upholds-life-sentence-in-land-dispute-murder-case-2/) - The Judgment in the Case of Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs. State of Maharashtra., arising out of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1145 of 2011 and No. 1160 of 2025 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on March 05, 2025. This case
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DISHONOURED CHEQUES.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-non-executive-directors-cannot-be-held-liable-for-dishonoured-cheques/) - A two Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B. V. Nagarathna, passed a Judgement dated 04.03.2025, in the matter of K.S. Mehta v/s M/s Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 04.03.2025, allowed the Special Leave Petition (SLP)
- [Recent Car Accident? Here Are Some Laws You Should Know](https://theindianlawyer.in/recent-car-accident-here-are-some-laws-you-should-know/) - Being involved in a car accident can be a traumatic experience, and the aftermath often leaves individuals unsure of their rights and what steps to take next. While it’s natural to feel overwhelmed, it’s crucial to understand the legal aspects surrounding car accidents. Knowing the laws that apply to your situation can make a significant
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE BAIL ORDER IN EXAMINATION FRAUD CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-bail-order-in-examination-fraud-case/) - Introduction In this Case,The State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh &Ors. Criminal Appeal No(s). ___ of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 16156-16157/2024)was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble JusticeSanjay Karol and JusticeAhsanuddinAmanullahon March 07, 2025.The case deals with the Supreme Court overturning the Rajasthan High Court's
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS ALIBI, UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN LAND DISPUTE MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-alibi-upholds-life-sentence-in-land-dispute-murder-case/) - The Judgment in the Case of Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs. State of Maharashtra., arising out of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1145 of 2011 and No. 1160 of 2025 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on March 05, 2025. This case
- [SUPREME COURT RULING ON LEGALITY OF AUCTION SALE AND LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-ruling-on-legality-of-auction-sale-and-leasehold-rights-in-liquidation-proceedings/) - The Judgment in the Case of Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2011] was delivered by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 07-03- 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that without the
- [The Last Seen Moment: Evidence and Implications in Criminal Cases](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-last-seen-moment-evidence-and-implications-in-criminal-cases/) - A Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Judges Bela M. Trivedi and Shri Prasanna B. Varale passed a judgment dated 27th February 2025 in case of State of Chhattisgarh versus Ashok Bhoi upholding the acquittal of two accused persons in a murder case and held that – “Allowing the guilty to evade accountability based
- [The Binding Nature of Court Undertakings on Contempt and Legal Ethics](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-binding-nature-of-court-undertakings-on-contempt-and-legal-ethics/) - The Supreme Court of India, in Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai & Ors. 2025 INSC 325, delivered a landmark judgment addressing issues of undertaking violations and contempt of court. The case involved Smt. Lavanya C and another as Appellants against the legal representatives of late Vittal Gurudas Pai. The core issue
- [SUPREME COURT OVER RULES CONVICTION IN ABETMENT OF SUICIDE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-over-rules-conviction-in-abetment-of-suicide-case/) - Disclaimer This article discusses topics related to suicide, which may be distressing to some readers. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of self-harm or suicide, please seek help immediately. You can contact KIRAN (24/7 Mental Health Helpline) at 1800-599-0019 or reach out to a trusted mental health professional. You are not
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS RESERVATION OF PLOT CAN LAPSE BY EFFLUX OF TIME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-reservation-of-plot-can-lapse-by-efflux-of-time/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a judgement dated 25.02.2025 in the matter of Nirmiti Developers through its Partners and Anr. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 25.02.2025, allowed the Special
- [Revisiting the Significance of Sanctions for Suing Public Servants](https://theindianlawyer.in/revisiting-the-significance-of-sanctions-for-suing-public-servants/) - A Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Judges B.V. Nagarathna and Shri Satish Chandra Sharma passed a judgment dated February 25,2025 in Suneeti Toteja vs State of U.P. & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 6898 of 2023 wherein the Court determined that the notion of a deemed sanction does not exist under section 197 of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT MERE DESIGNATION AS DIRECTOR IS INSUFFICIENT FOR LIABILITY UNDER NI ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-mere-designation-as-director-is-insufficient-for-liability-under-ni-act/) - A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Amit Mahajan in CRL.M.C. 4497/2019 & CRL.M.A. 35347/2019 passed a Judgment dated 24-02-2025 in the matter Adarsh Saran & Anr.(Petitioners) vs. Central Bank of India (Respondent) and Alok Khanna vs Central Bank of India, held that the Petitioners could not be held
- [Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Protection: No Stay on Execution Proceedings Despite Insolvency Moratorium](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-consumer-protection-no-stay-on-execution-proceedings-despite-insolvency-moratorium/) - The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors. 2025 INSC 314, has provided a significant ruling clarifying the relationship between insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the enforcement of consumer protection laws. The Court categorically held that execution proceedings
- [Supreme Court Defines Interest Liability in Employee Compensation Claims](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-defines-interest-liability-in-employee-compensation-claims/) - In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India in Shanti & Ors. v. National Insurance Company, 2025 INSC 234, provided clarity on the issue of interest liability under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The judgment, delivered by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, underlines the statutory obligation to pay interest on delayed compensation and examines the
- [THE SUPREME COURT RULES ON MONEY LAUNDERING AND OWNERSHIP DISPUTE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-supreme-court-rules-on-money-laundering-and-ownership-dispute-based-on-circumstantial-evidence/) - The judgment in the case of Nandkumar Babulal Soni v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., arising out of Criminal Appeal Nos. 579-580, 581-583, and 584 of 2012 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan on February
- [DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS BAIL TO ACCUSED DUE TO PROLONGED INCARCERATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-grants-bail-to-accused-due-to-prolonged-incarceration/) - The Judgment in the case of Mushir Alam v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Bail Application No. 4606/2024) was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on February 25, 2025. This case primarily deals with a bail application under the NDPS Act, where the Petitioner,
- [From Denial to Triumph: An Account of a Policyholder’s Resilience in the Face of an Insurance Policy](https://theindianlawyer.in/from-denial-to-triumph-an-account-of-a-policyholders-resilience-in-the-face-of-an-insurance-policy/) - A Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a judgment dated February 25,2025 in the matter of Mahaveer Sharma versus Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. SLP (Civil) No. 2136 of 2021 wherein the Bench held that “contract of insurance is ubberima fides” and
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT JUSTIFY CONVICTION BY TRIAL COURT.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-prosecutions-failure-to-prove-circumstances-does-not-justify-conviction-by-trial-court/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 24.02.2025 in the matter of Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 24.02.2025, acquitted the Appellant, Md. Bani Alam Mazid,
- [DELHI HIGH COURT OVERTURNS CONVICTIONS, CITING FLAWS IN PROSECUTION AND LOWER COURT RULINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-overturns-convictions-citing-flaws-in-prosecution-and-lower-court-rulings/) - A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in CRL.REV.P. 1069/2024 & CRL.M.A. 25608/2024 passed a Judgment dated 25-02-2025 in the matter Virender Kumar and Ors.(Petitioners) vs. State NCT of Delhi (Respondent) and held that clear errors and inconsistencies flaw the Judgments of both the Trial Court
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT NO MINIMUM PROCUREMENT RIGHT CAN BE PROVIDED FOR INDIVIDUAL MICRO, SMALL ENTERPRISES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-no-minimum-procurement-right-can-be-provided-for-individual-micro-small-enterprises/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement dated 25.02.2025 in the matter of Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (C) No. 1301 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that the authorities
- [Top 5 Ways Litigation Experts Can Enhance Your Case](https://theindianlawyer.in/top-5-ways-litigation-experts-can-enhance-your-case/) - In the realm of litigation, the inclusion of expert witnesses can significantly influence the outcome of a case. Their specialized knowledge and ability to present complex information in an understandable manner can provide a crucial advantage in court. Understanding how to effectively leverage expert witnesses is essential for attorneys looking to build a compelling case.
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STRUCTURED INSOLVENCY PROCESS, RULES AGAINST HIGH COURT’S PREMATURE WRIT JURISDICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-structured-insolvency-process-rules-against-high-courts-premature-writ-jurisdiction/) - The Judgment in the Case of Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2759 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 18062 of 2024.) delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra on February 20, 2025.
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL DEFAMATION CASE, FINDS NO PRIMA FACIE DEFAMATION AGAINST JOURNALISTS IN BID AND HAMMER DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-defamation-case-finds-no-prima-facie-defamation-against-journalists-in-bid-and-hammer-dispute/) - The Judgment in the case of Jaideep Bose & Others vs. M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 814-817 of 2025), arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10212, 13443, 15653 and 16153 of 2024, was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and
- [THE LEGAL BATTLE OVER RANVEER ALLAHBADIA’S REMARKS: “FREE SPEECH VS. OBSCENITY LAWS”](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-legal-battle-over-ranveer-allahbadias-remarks-free-speech-vs-obscenity-laws/) - Brief Facts of the Case On 9 February 2025, Ranveer Allahbadia, a popular YouTuber with 8 million followers, made an obscene remark while judging the show India’s Got Latent, asking a contestant a controversial question: "Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE KEY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A SECOND FIR CAN BE REGISTERED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-the-key-circumstances-under-which-a-second-fir-can-be-registered/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgement dated 19-02-2025 in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Surender Singh Rathore, Special Leave Petition (Criminal.) No.16358 of 2024 overturning a Rajasthan High Court ruling that had quashed a second FIR against a government official
- [Independent Directors Liability Under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881](https://theindianlawyer.in/independent-directors-liability-under-negotiable-instruments-act-1881/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its recent ruling in Kamal Kishor Shrigopal Taparia v. India Ener-Gen Private Limited & Anr., 2025 INSC 223 has reaffirmed the principles governing vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act"). This judgment provides clarity on the liability of independent non-executive directors in cheque dishonour cases
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS DAMAGES MUST BE AWARDED AS STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-damages-must-be-awarded-as-stipulated-in-the-contract/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 14.02.2025 in the matter of Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2014 wherein the Bench held that Parties cannot
- [INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 271 AAA of INCOME TAX ACT, 1961](https://theindianlawyer.in/interpretation-of-section-271-aaa-of-income-tax-act-1961/) - A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice J.B. PARDIWALA passed a judgment dated February 13, 2025 in case of K.Krishna Murthy vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025 which arose by Special leave Petition (C) No. 943 of 2023 wherein the Bench interpreted
- [SUPREME COURT REVERSES BAIL GRANTED IN ILLEGAL SAND MINING CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reverses-bail-granted-in-illegal-sand-mining-case/) - The Judgment in the Case of Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad (Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2025) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale on February 12, 2025. This case primarily deals with illegal
- [SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS MAINTENANCE AND ALIMONY RIGHTS IN VOID MARRIAGES UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-interprets-maintenance-and-alimony-rights-in-void-marriages-under-the-hindu-marriage-act/) - The Judgment in the Case of (Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019) delivered by a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih on February 12, 2025. The case clarifies the entitlement to alimony and
- [Supreme Court of India Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case: A Detailed Analysis](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-of-india-enhances-compensation-in-motor-accident-case-a-detailed-analysis/) - Introduction In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. (2025 INSC 180) addressed a crucial issue concerning the assessment of disability and the calculation of compensation in motor accident claims. The case highlights the judicial approach towards victim rehabilitation, particularly for individuals who suffer from
- [Supreme Court Brings Legal Clarity on Divorce and Alimony](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-brings-legal-clarity-on-divorce-and-alimony/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on February 7, 2025, in the case of Gudivada Seshagiri Rao v. Gudivada Ashalatha & Anr., 2025 INSC 195 addressed a long-standing matrimonial dispute. The case involved a couple who had spent only four months together after their marriage in 1999 but had been embroiled in
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS MINIMUM WAGE CALCULATION AND PROVIDES THAT A STUDENT’S FUTURE CANNOT BE MEASURED BY AN UNSKILLED WORKER’S WAGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-minimum-wage-calculation-and-provides-that-a-students-future-cannot-be-measured-by-an-unskilled-workers-wage/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan passed a judgement dated 10.02.2025 in the matter of Deepak Singh alias Deepak Chauhan V. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. C.A. No. 2255/2025 wherein the Bench held that compensation in motor accident claims should be fair and also be
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS ACCUSED AFTER 10 YEAR TERM IN JAIL DUE TO LACK OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-accused-after-10-year-term-in-jail-due-to-lack-of-circumstantial-evidence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a judgement dated 10.02.2025 in the matter of Ravi v. State of Punjab SLP (Crl) No.7712 Of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the circumstances through which a conclusion is drawn by a Court should
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS NHAI PLEA FOR PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF A 2019 JUDGEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-nhai-plea-for-prospective-application-of-a-2019-judgement-2/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 04.02.2025 in Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019 wherein the Bench held that judgements which have attained finality cannot be set aside by a so-called
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS NHAI PLEA FOR PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF A 2019 JUDGEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-nhai-plea-for-prospective-application-of-a-2019-judgement/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 04.02.2025 in Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019 wherein the Bench held that judgements which have attained finality cannot be set aside by a so-called
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES TESTIMONY AS IT IS RIDDLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-testimony-of-prosecution-witnesses-testimony-as-it-is-riddled-with-contradictions/) - A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 04-02-2025 in the matter of Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs. the State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2013 and observed while there is strong suspicion against the Appellant that point to his being
- [Disciplinary vs. Criminal Proceedings: A Legal Perspective from the Supreme Court](https://theindianlawyer.in/disciplinary-vs-criminal-proceedings-a-legal-perspective-from-the-supreme-court/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated a significant case in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025 INSC 149), dealing with corruption charges against a public official. This case involved multiple layers of judicial review, including criminal proceedings, departmental disciplinary actions, and writ petitions. The Court's decision reaffirms important legal principles
- [HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT DRUGS CAN BE ALTERED OR RELABELLED IF MANUFACTURERS HOLD LICENSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/honble-supreme-court-holds-that-drugs-can-be-altered-or-relabelled-if-manufacturers-hold-license-2/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court constituting Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih recently held in the judgement of Inox Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024) dated 30.01.2025 related to the purchase and sale of
- [HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT DRUGS CAN BE ALTERED OR RELABELLED IF MANUFACTURERS HOLD LICENSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/honble-supreme-court-holds-that-drugs-can-be-altered-or-relabelled-if-manufacturers-hold-license/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court constituting Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih recently held in the judgement of Inox Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024) dated 30.01.2025 related to the purchase and sale of
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONSUMER RIGHTS AND LIMITS FORFEITURE IN BUILDER-BUYER AGREEMENTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-consumer-rights-and-limits-forfeiture-in-builder-buyer-agreements/) - The Judgment in the Case of Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3334 of 2023) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, on February 03, 2025. The case deals with forfeiture clauses in builder-buyer agreements
- [SUPREME COURT PROVIDES JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-provides-judicial-safeguards-against-wrongful-convictions/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 29-01-2025 in the matter of Vinobhai vs. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No.1730/ 2017 and observed that the conviction must be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held as the available
- [SUPREME COURT REVERSES WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF POLICEMEN AS PROSECUTION FAILS TO ESTABLISH COMMON INTENTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reverses-wrongful-conviction-of-policemen-as-prosecution-fails-to-establish-common-intention/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih passed a judgement dated 28.01.2025 in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand Criminal Appeal No. 355 Of 2013 wherein the Bench held that all Accused persons cannot be convicted
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE MEDICAL COURSES SHALL NOT BE BASED ON DOMICILE-BASED RESERVATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-admission-to-post-graduate-medical-courses-shall-not-be-based-on-domicile-based-reservations/) - A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti recently held in the judgement dated 29.01.2025 in the matter of Dr.Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019 that state-quota based reservations in PG medical seats are unconstitutional
- [Supreme Court on Legitimacy, DNA Testing, and Res Judicata in Family Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-on-legitimacy-dna-testing-and-res-judicata-in-family-law/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its decision in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025 INSC 115), addressed key issues concerning the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the jurisdiction of civil and family courts, and the principle of res judicata. The case, which involved multiple rounds of
- [SUPREME COURT RULES ON RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-on-retrospective-promotion-and-consequential-benefits-in-disciplinary-proceedings/) - The Judgment in the Case of K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10245 of 2024), was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. V. Viswanathan, on January 27, 2025. This case concerns the
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES FIR FOR ABDUCTION AND RAPE IN CONSENSUAL MARRIAGE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-for-abduction-and-rape-in-consensual-marriage-case/) - The Judgment in the Case of Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13277 of 2023, was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, on January 31, 2025. This case deals with
- [Supreme Court Clarifies Procedural Limits on Interim Relief in Second Appeals](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-procedural-limits-on-interim-relief-in-second-appeals/) - Introduction In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the procedural validity of granting interim relief in Second Appeals without formulating substantial questions of law, as mandated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The judgment arose from a civil dispute between U. Sudheera and others (Appellants) and C.
- [SUPREME COURT EXAMINES CONDITIONS FOR COMPLIANCE OF A DECREE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-examines-conditions-for-compliance-of-a-decree-of-specific-performance/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan; in the judgement of Balbir Singh & Anr. etc. v Baldev Singh (D) through his Lrs. Civil Appeal Nos. 563-566 Of 2025 (Petitions For Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos. 22802-22805 Of 2022); addressed the issue of
- [Men Too Are Entitled To Same Protection From Cruelty And Violence As Women: Delhi HC](https://theindianlawyer.in/men-too-are-entitled-to-same-protection-from-cruelty-and-violence-as-women-delhi-hc/) - Never in my life till date have I cried so much in joy than after reading this most commendable, most historic, most courageous and most balanced judgment authored by not a man but most astonishingly by a woman herself named – Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and
- [Judicial Review vs. Statutory Arbitration: Supreme Court Examines MSMED Act Disputes](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-review-vs-statutory-arbitration-supreme-court-examines-msmed-act-disputes/) - On January 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s TamilNadu Cements Corporation Limited (TANCEM) v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) & Another 2025 INSC 91. This case addressed critical legal questions concerning the interplay between the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
- [SUPREME COURT DECIDES ON WHETHER THE STATE AUTHORITY CAN LEVY ROYALTY ON BRICK EARTH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-decides-on-whether-the-state-authority-can-levy-royalty-on-brick-earth/) - The Judgment in the Case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. M/s Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner, Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10687-10694 of 2013) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, on January 21, 2025. The case revolves around
- [The Importance of Registration and Auction Sanctity in Indian Property Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-importance-of-registration-and-auction-sanctity-in-indian-property-law/) - The case of Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors. SLP (C) No. 330/2017 dated 10-12-2024, (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114702458/) is a case that delves into the issues of property ownership, the legality of unregistered transactions, and the sanctity of public auctions conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT EVEN IF MISAPPROPRIATED FUNDS HAVE BEEN RETURNED DISCIPLINARY ACTION CAN CONTINUE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-even-if-misappropriated-funds-have-been-returned-disciplinary-action-can-continue/) - The Judgment in the Case of The General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank & Ors Vs. B S N Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 6327 Of 2024) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, on January 21, 2025. This case examines
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CASHLESS TREATMENT IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-statutory-responsibility-for-cashless-treatment-in-motor-vehicle-accidents/) - SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CASHLESS TREATMENT IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS Introduction Facts of the Case The Judgment in the Case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S.
- [Balancing Justice in Cross Cases Ramesh V. State of Rajasthan, 2025 INSC 46](https://theindianlawyer.in/balancing-justice-in-cross-cases-ramesh-v-state-of-rajasthan-2025-insc-46/) - The Supreme Court of India, rendered a judgment addressing a prolonged family feud that escalated into violent clashes and legal battles. The case highlighted significant procedural and substantive issues, including the principles governing cross-cases, the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and the need for proportionality in sentencing. Background of the Case On
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PLEA OF JUVENILITY CANNOT BE IGNORED ON GROUNDS OF CASUAL ADJUDICATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-plea-of-juvenility-cannot-be-ignored-on-grounds-of-casual-adjudication/) - A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.M Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar delivered the landmark judgement Om Prakash vs. Union of India and Ors. 2025 Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 2214 of 2022) which addressed the pertinent issue of juvenility in India. The
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT RULES OF LIMITATION ARE GROUNDED IN PUBLIC POLICY AND EQUITY, ENSURING THAT THE ‘SWORD OF DAMOCLES’ DOES NOT HANG OVER A LITIGANT INDEFINITELY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-rules-of-limitation-are-grounded-in-public-policy-and-equity-ensuring-that-the-sword-of-damocles-does-not-hang-over-a-litigant-indefinitely/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice R.Mahadevan passed a Judgment dated 08-01-2025 in the matter of H.Guruswamy & Ors vs. A. Krishnaiah since deceased by Lrs, Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 and observed that if a party loses the right to have a matter considered on merits
- [SUPREME COURT EMPHASISES ON THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE ARBITRATORS UNDER A VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-impartiality-of-the-arbitrators-under-a-valid-arbitration-agreement/) - A three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a judgement dated 09.01.2025 in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. R.K. Pandey & Another Civil Appeal no. 10212 of 2014 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that a valid arbitration
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION REQUIRES A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF INTENT, SUBSTANTIATED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-that-a-prima-facie-case-of-criminal-intimidation-requires-a-clear-demonstration-of-intent-substantiated-by-evidence-on-record/) - A division-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 02-01-2025 in the matter of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021 observed that it is well established that while dealing
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A LIBERATED APPROACH MUST BE TAKEN IN ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF SEIZED VEHICLES IN THE CASES OF NDPS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-liberated-approach-must-be-taken-in-allowing-the-release-of-seized-vehicles-in-the-cases-of-ndps/) - A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan passed a judgement dated 07.01.2025 in the matter of Bishwajit Dey V. The State of Assam Criminal Appeal No. 87 Of 2025 wherein the Bench held that while the criminal matter is being handled, there is no particular prohibition
- [HON’BLE SUPREME COURT QUASHES FIR AGAINST AUTHORISED AGENT FOR UNAUTHORISED SELLING OF RAILWAY TICKETS](https://theindianlawyer.in/honble-supreme-court-quashes-fir-against-authorised-agent-for-unauthorised-selling-of-railway-tickets/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in the matter of J. Ramesh versus Union of India Criminal Appeal No. 4169/2024 Arising Out Of SLP (Criminal) No. 2408/2017 where in Bench passed a judgement dated 06.01.2025 that the illegal sale of ticket by
- [Supreme Court: Directors Not Automatically Liable for Corporate Environmental Violations](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directors-not-automatically-liable-for-corporate-environmental-violations/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued an order dated 02.01.2025 in the matter of Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 7464/2024). The case addressed the criminal liability of directors
- [Supreme Court Upholds CBI Jurisdiction and State Consent Post-Bifurcation of State](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-cbi-jurisdiction-and-state-consent-post-bifurcation-of-state/) - Introduction On January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment (Division Bench) in The State, Central Bureau of Investigation V. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. 2025 INSC 11 by addressing crucial questions of jurisdiction, procedural compliance, and the application of anti-corruption laws post State bifurcation. This case involved two criminal appeals, both
- [Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment in Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho](https://theindianlawyer.in/analysis-of-the-supreme-court-judgment-in-lilian-coelho-ors-v-myra-philomena-coalho/) - Introduction The Supreme Court judgment (Division Bench) in Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009 addresses a critical testamentary dispute involving a Will executed by Mrs. Maria Francisca Coelho. The case highlights the interplay between valid execution and the genuineness of a Will, as well as the legal standards for resolving suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
- [Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decision in Land Ownership Dispute](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-high-courts-decision-in-land-ownership-dispute/) - The Judgment in the Case of M/s Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd. Versus Andappa (D) By LRs &Ors.(Civil Appeal Nos. 3650-3655 of 2018, with Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2018) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, on 2nd
- [ANTICIPATORY BAIL DENIED TO FORMER IAS PROBATIONER ON ACCOUNT OF WRONGLY CLEARING UPSC EXAMINATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/anticipatory-bail-denied-to-former-ias-probationer-on-account-of-wrongly-clearing-upsc-examination/) - A Single Judge Bench of the learned Delhi High Court consisting of Hon’ble Justice Chandra Dhari Singh deliberated on whether anticipatory bail made under Section 482 (direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) should be granted in favour of the Applicant who has been wrongly accused
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS POND CLASSIFICATION AND VALIDATES REVENUE AUTHORITY FINDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-pond-classification-and-validates-revenue-authority-findings/) - The Judgment in the Case of Ajay Singh v. Khacheru& Ors., Civil Appeal Nos– of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, on 2nd January 2025. In this case,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THERE SHOULD BE PROXIMITY BETWEEN ACT OF INSTIGATION AND ACT OF SUICIDE TO ESTABLISH OFFENCE OF ABETMENT TO SUICIDE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-there-should-be-proximity-between-act-of-instigation-and-act-of-suicide-to-establish-offence-of-abetment-to-suicide/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice K. Vishwanathan ruled in favour of the Appellant by setting aside the decisions passed by the lower courts in the matter of Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023) on
- [SUPREME COURT ADDRESSES MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN POST-OPERATIVE CATARACT SURGERY CARE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-addresses-medical-negligence-in-post-operative-cataract-surgery-care/) - The Judgment in the case of Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal (D) by LRs. v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare CIVIL APPEAL NOS. – OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NOS.11716-11717 OF 2019) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, on December 19,
- [Safeguarding India’s Natural Heritage: The Supreme Court’s Verdict on Rajasthan’s Orans](https://theindianlawyer.in/safeguarding-indias-natural-heritage-the-supreme-courts-verdict-on-rajasthans-orans/) - The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment addressing the ecological and cultural importance of Rajasthan’s sacred groves, or Orans, underlining their role in conserving biodiversity and supporting local livelihoods. This decision, part of the ongoing T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 2024 INSC 997 case, underscores the need to integrate cultural
- [Supreme Court Partly Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Compensation Case: Awards Interest for Procedural Delay](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-partly-allows-appeal-in-motor-accident-compensation-case-awards-interest-for-procedural-delay/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgement dated 19-12-2024 in the matter of T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) through Lrs. vs. V.J. Antony and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14749 of 2024 and held that the High Court was correct in holding that
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE THE ORDER OF NATIONAL CONSUMER FORUM THAT ALLOWED POSSESSION OF LAND AFTER 28 YEARS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-the-order-of-national-consumer-forum-that-allowed-possession-of-land-after-28-years/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Dr. Hemant Mandovra SLP (C) No. 14908 of 2023 wherein the Bench held that non-compliance with payment schedules, despite leniency, cannot justify claims for possession after an
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT PROLONGED IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT TRIAL VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, WHICH ENSURES THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-prolonged-imprisonment-without-trial-violates-article-21-of-the-indian-constitution-which-ensures-the-right-to-a-speedy-trial/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed a Judgement dated 17-12-2024 in the matter of Athar Parwez vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024 and established that strict statutory provisions cannot supersede fundamental rights, particularly in cases with insufficient prima
- [VALIDITY OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND PARTITION DECREES UNDER THE UTTAR PRADESH CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1960](https://theindianlawyer.in/validity-of-family-settlement-and-partition-decrees-under-the-uttar-pradesh-ceiling-on-land-holdings-act-1960/) - The Judgment in the Case of State Of Uttar Pradesh &Anr. Versus Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20021 OF 2022) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhuliaand and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, On 17 December 2024.
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS HIGH COURTS MUST USE INHERENT POWERS TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IF NO PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MADE OUT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-high-courts-must-use-inherent-powers-to-quash-the-proceedings-if-no-prima-facie-case-is-made-out/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. V. Viswanathan passed a judgement in Digambar and Anr. vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anr. SLP (Crl.) No.2122 of 2020 wherein the Bench held that vague, generalized, or retaliatory allegations in matrimonial disputes should not be allowed
- [Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd.](https://theindianlawyer.in/analysis-of-the-supreme-court-judgment-north-delhi-municipal-corporation-v-m-s-s-a-builders-ltd/) - Introduction In the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd., 2024 INSC 988 the Supreme Court of India dealt with complex issues surrounding arbitration, the powers of arbitral tribunals, and the interpretation of interest under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act"). The judgment has significant implications for arbitration jurisprudence,
- [Bank Account Frozen? Here’s How the Law Protects You from Unjust Actions](https://theindianlawyer.in/bank-account-frozen-heres-how-the-law-protects-you-from-unjust-actions/) - Authors – Navodaya Singh Rajpurohit and Rithik Dhariwal 1. Introduction In today’s fast-paced digital economy, financial transactions are conducted seamlessly across borders and platforms, offering convenience and efficiency. However, this ease of access has also led to an increase in fraud and financial crimes. A particularly distressing scenario arises when an innocent individual’s or
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS ITS STANCE ON ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-its-stance-on-illegal-constructions/) - With rapid urbanization, illegal and unauthorized constructions have emerged as a pervasive issue, undermining urban planning and legal frame works.day and age, where construction is on the boom, illegal and unauthorized constructions have become a very common practice. Although there are several Laws and Bye-Laws that lay down stringent conditions for constructions yet there are
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF SECTION 28-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR REDETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-section-28-a-of-the-land-acquisition-act-for-redetermination-of-compensation/) - The Judgment in the Case of Banwari and Others Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Hsiidc) And Another(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13348 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12221 of 2022)was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, On 17
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES PENSION LIABILITY FOR GRANT-IN-AID INSTITUTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-pension-liability-for-grant-in-aid-institutions/) - The Judgment in the Case of Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith Versus Government of Gujarat and Anr. (2024 INSC 935), Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11733-11734 of 2023 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, and J.K. Maheshwari, on 02 December 2024. This case addresses whether
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT DELAY MAY BE CONDONED IF IT IS PROPERLY EXPLAINED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-delay-may-be-condoned-if-it-is-properly-explained/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgement dated 17-12-2024 in the matter of Rajesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, Criminal Appeal Nos. 14615-14616/2024 and held that the State Commission correctly concluded that Condition No. 4 of the Policy[i] was not applicable
- [Evolving Legal Interpretations of Shared Households and Women’s Residence Rights under the Domestic Violence Act](https://theindianlawyer.in/evolving-legal-interpretations-of-shared-households-and-womens-residence-rights-under-the-domestic-violence-act/) - The Indian legal framework has progressively addressed the pervasive issue of domestic violence with the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). This legislation represents a critical milestone in the empowerment of women, particularly through its provision establishing the right to reside in a "shared household" as a cornerstone
- [Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Bar on Appeal Restoration in Compromise Disputes](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-overturns-high-courts-bar-on-appeal-restoration-in-compromise-disputes/) - On December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important judgment in Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors., 2024 INSC 970, concerning the restoration of appeals following a compromise decree. The decision clarifies critical aspects of Order 23, Rules 3 and 3A[1] of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Background
- [COURTS MUST METICULOUSLY EXAMINE THE FACTS OF A CASE AND PREVENT THE MISUSE OF LEGAL PROVISIONS IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/courts-must-meticulously-examine-the-facts-of-a-case-and-prevent-the-misuse-of-legal-provisions-in-matrimonial-disputes/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed a judgement in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 16239 of 2024 wherein the Bench held that although Section 498A of IPC was introduced to protect the interests of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REITERATES THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT “FRAUD NULLIFIES ALL ACTIONS, WHETHER IN REM OR IN PERSONAM”](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-reiterates-the-established-principle-that-fraud-nullifies-all-actions-whether-in-rem-or-in-personam/) - A double-Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed a Judgement dated 11-12-2024 in the matter of North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. M/s Veera Builders thr its Partner & Ors, RFA(OS) 85/2016 and held that the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the Suit at
- [REVERSAL OF CONVICTION DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN CHARGES OF CHEATING, ABETMENT OF SUICIDE AND RAPE](https://theindianlawyer.in/reversal-of-conviction-due-to-insufficient-evidence-in-charges-of-cheating-abetment-of-suicide-and-rape/) - (Disclaimer: Trigger Warning This article discusses topics related to suicide, which may be distressing for some readers. Reader discretion is advised. If you or someone you know is experiencing feelings of distress or thoughts of self-harm, please seek help immediately. Helpline Information: In India, you can contact the AASRA Foundation at 91-9820466726 or 91-9820466727. Their
- [Balancing Tradition and Modern Governance: The Oachira Temple Judgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/balancing-tradition-and-modern-governance-the-oachira-temple-judgment/) - The Supreme Court of India, on December 3, 2024, delivered a significant judgment in the case Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. Vs. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors. (2024 INSC 922). This case revolved around the administration and management of the historic Oachira Parabrahma Temple, located in Kerala. The judgment provided clarity on issues of temple governance,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT POLICE INVESTIGATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE IMPARTIAL AND NOT GUIDED BY PERSONAL OR POLITICAL VENDETTA](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-police-investigation-should-always-be-impartial-and-not-guided-by-personal-or-political-vendetta/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a judgement dated 04.12.2024 in the matter of Kabir Shankar Bose v. State of West Bengal Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 416 of 2020 wherein the Bench held that investigation prejudiced by police and politicians may
- [MISUSE OF THE LAW RESULTED IN BENGALURU TECHIE SUICIDE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/misuse-of-the-law-resulted-in-bengaluru-techie-suicide-case/) - On 9th December, 2024, an Engineer in Bengaluru committed suicide sending shock waves in society. The reason for the suicide was the extreme harassment of Atul Subhash at the hands of his wife Nikita Singhania and in-laws who he claimed had filed false cases against him making him run from pillar to post to defend
- [Employer-Employee Dynamics: Delhi High Court Upholds Labour Tribunal Ruling](https://theindianlawyer.in/employer-employee-dynamics-delhi-high-court-upholds-labour-tribunal-ruling/) - The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia, delivered a pivotal judgment on November 29, 2024, in the case of Satish Kumar v. Holistic Child Development India and Others, W.P.(C) 5664/2010. The case revolved around labour law, with the Petitioner challenging the Labour Court’s Award that denied the existence of an employer-employee
- [THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF BONA FIDE PURCHASERS AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-legal-implications-of-bona-fide-purchasers-and-specific-performance/) - This Judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon'ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan on November 21, 2024, in the Supreme Court of India. It arose out of Civil Appeal No. 13066/2024, arising from SLP (C) No. 18899/2019, in the case of Manjit Singh & Anr. vs. Darshana
- [CLARIFYING ARBITRATION JURISDICTION: THE SUPREME COURT’S LANDMARK DECISION ON SEAT VS. VENUE IN ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. V. MICROMAX INFORMATICS](https://theindianlawyer.in/clarifying-arbitration-jurisdiction-the-supreme-courts-landmark-decision-on-seat-vs-venue-in-arif-azim-co-ltd-v-micromax-informatics/) - Introduction The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 7.11.2024, in the case of Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, delivered through a bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, addressed the critical issue of determining the seat of arbitration in international contracts. The
- [DELHI HIGH COURT AFFIRMS THAT EVERY WOMAN HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO ASSESS HER LIFE AND DETERMINE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION BASED ON CHANGES IN HER MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-affirms-that-every-woman-has-the-prerogative-to-assess-her-life-and-determine-the-best-course-of-action-based-on-changes-in-her-material-circumstances/) - A single-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad passed a Judgment dated 04-12-2024 in the matter of R vs. The Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors., W.P.(C) 16751/2023 and observed that the right to reproductive choice also includes the right not to procreate,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A WRIT COURT CAN CORRECT THE FACTS AND FINDINGS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, IF INCORRECT EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THEM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-writ-court-can-correct-the-facts-and-findings-of-lower-authorities-if-incorrect-evidence-is-produced-by-them/) - A two Judge Bench comprising of Justice C.T Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a judgement dated 21.11.2024 in the matter of Shambhu Chauhan V. Ram Kirpal @ Chirkut & Ors. Civil Appeal no. 3311 of 2017 wherein the Bench held that factual conclusions and findings by local authorities can be corrected by a Writ
- [MORTGAGE ENFORCEMENT VS. ALIENATION RESTRICTIONS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES](https://theindianlawyer.in/mortgage-enforcement-vs-alienation-restrictions-under-karnataka-land-grant-rules/) - This Judgment was delivered by a Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka comprising Hon’ble Justice M. Nagaprasanna on November 5, 2024, in the Case of South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 30302/2024. The South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Petitioner) has filed a Writ
- [Supreme Court Upholds Justice in Consensual Relationship Dispute](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-justice-in-consensual-relationship-dispute/) - On November 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2024 INSC 879) delivered a significant judgment addressing the misuse of criminal proceedings in consensual relationships, ultimately quashing the FIR against the Appellant. This judgment was rendered by a Two Judges Bench. Background of the
- [SUPREME COURT DETERMINES THAT “SUFFICIENT CAUSE” SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO FACILITATE EFFECTIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-determines-that-sufficient-cause-should-be-interpreted-to-facilitate-effective-dispute-resolution/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgement dated 22-11-2024 in the matter of M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. vs. General Manager & Anr. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2272 of 2024 and held that arbitration is intended to resolve disputes through a process
- [SUPREME COURT RESTORES CONVICTION IN CORRUPTION CASE INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANT’S DEMAND FOR BRIBE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-restores-conviction-in-corruption-case-involving-public-servants-demand-for-bribe/) - Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Corruption Case Involving Public Servant's Demand for Bribe A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a judgement dated 26.11.2024 in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha Criminal Appeal No.2646 of 2024 wherein
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRAL INTEGRITY IN THE MATTER OF “INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT. LTD. V. KAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED”](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-arbitral-integrity-in-the-matter-of-international-seaport-dredging-pvt-ltd-v-kamarajar-port-limited/) - Introduction The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 24.10.2024, in the case of International Seaport Dredging Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamarajar Port Limited, delivered through a bench comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J., J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ., addressed critical issues concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
- [SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF LIC IN SERVICE ABANDONMENT CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-lic-in-service-abandonment-case/) - This Judgment was delivered by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti on November 13, 2024 in the Case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash (Civil Appeal No. 4393 of 2010). It arose from an Appeal against the Judgment of the Himachal
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS ITS STANCE ON UNDER ARTICLE 14 IN A MATTER RELATED TO LIMITS OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-its-stance-on-under-article-14-in-a-matter-related-to-limits-of-compassionate-appointment/) - Introduction The Supreme Court, through its bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, in its recent judgment in Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024) vide order dated November 13, 2024, stated that compassionate appointments are not vested rights but are strictly governed by
- [Supreme Court Restores Rs. 1.75 Lakh Interim Maintenance](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-restores-rs-1-75-lakh-interim-maintenance/) - In a significant judgement that underlined the importance of fairness and transparency in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India, in Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis (2024 INSC 876), reinstated the interim maintenance of Rs. 1.75 lakh per month to the estranged wife. The judgement, delivered on November 19, 2024, reflects the judiciary’s
- [Supreme Court Affirms High Court’s Verdict in Favour of Private Landowners](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-affirms-high-courts-verdict-in-favour-of-private-landowners/) - In a landmark judgement (State of Haryana & Anr. v. Amin Lal through LRs & Ors., 2024 INSC 875), the Supreme Court of India (Division Bench) upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision favouring the private landowners against the State of Haryana and its Public Works Department (PWD). The case, arising from disputes over
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ASSESSES ENFORCEABILITY ANDCOMPLIANCE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN PROPERTY DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-assesses-enforceability-andcompliance-of-settlement-agreements-in-property-disputes/) - This Judgment was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon’ble Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in the case of Daljeet Singh v. M/s. Johar Towers Pvt. Ltd. (RFA 263/2003) on 13th November 2024. The case involves Daljeet Singh (the Appellant), who has filed an appeal against the decision of
- [THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF SECOND COMPLAINT UNDER THE CR.P.C](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-supreme-court-decision-on-the-maintainability-of-second-complaint-under-the-cr-p-c-2/) - This Judgment was delivered by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Bindal on November 5, 2024, in the Supreme Court of India. It arose out of Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 1242 of 2021 in the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury &
- [Navigating Director Liability in Cheque Dishonour Cases](https://theindianlawyer.in/navigating-director-liability-in-cheque-dishonour-cases/) - Background of the Case The Delhi High Court, by a Single Judge Bench recently addressed a case involving Anees Ur Rahman Vs. M/S Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium, CRL.M.C. 5464/2019, concerning allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), related to dishonour of a cheque. The case revolves around a financial agreement
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS REASSESSMENT OF DISSOLVED PARTNERSHIP’S ASSETS AND PROFITS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-reassessment-of-dissolved-partnerships-assets-and-profits/) - Facts: The Partnership Firm Crystal Transport Service was established in 1971 with four partners, including Fathima Fareedunisa (the Plaintiff) and three other partners, each holding a one-fourth share. In 1978, the Plaintiff filed a suit for the dissolution of the Partnership, settlement of accounts, and the appointment of a receiver to manage Firm assets until
- [SUPREME COURT ENHANCES COMPENSATION FOR MINOR ACCIDENT VICTIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-enhances-compensation-for-minor-accident-victim/) - Introduction: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Miss Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, vide Order dated 05.11.2024, held that the appellant, a minor who sustained a 75% permanent disability due to a road accident, was entitled to enhanced compensation. The judgment was delivered by a Division
- [HIGH COURT OF DELHI HOLDS THAT PARTIES MUST ADHERE TO THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND REFRAIN FROM JUDICIAL INTERVENTION WHEN VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS PRESENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-court-of-delhi-holds-that-parties-must-adhere-to-the-arbitration-agreement-and-refrain-from-judicial-intervention-when-valid-arbitration-agreement-is-present/) - A single Judge Bench of High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma passed a judgement dated 08.11.2024 in the matter of Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A. and Ors. CS(COMM) 544/2023 wherein the Bench held that parties must follow the arbitration agreement if the seat of arbitration is already decided in
- [SUPREME COURT REFERS APPOINTMENT OF A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TO THE DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refers-appointment-of-a-sole-arbitrator-in-an-international-arbitration-to-the-delhi-international-arbitration-centre/) - A double-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Manoj Misra passed a Judgement dated 08-11-2024 in the matter of Lifeforce Cryobank Sciences Inc vs. Cryoviva Biotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Arbitration Petition No. 15/2018. The Court determined that an arbitration agreement alone is sufficient for the appointment, leaving complex
- [Safe Driving and You: How to Avoid a Ticket](https://theindianlawyer.in/safe-driving-and-you-how-to-avoid-a-ticket/) - Driving isn’t just about reaching your destination. It's about being safe, following all the rules of the road, being alert, and protecting yourself and others. If you just remember a few basic things, there’s no reason to be constantly worried about getting a ticket. The key is to be proactive and to be sure that
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES LIMITATION LAWS FOR ELECTRICITY DUES IN THE CASE OF MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT VITARAN VS. BAPUNA ALCOBREW PVT. LTD.  ](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-limitation-laws-for-electricity-dues-in-the-case-of-madhya-pradesh-vidyut-vitaran-vs-bapuna-alcobrew-pvt-ltd/) - Introduction: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited & Ors. vs. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr. [2024 INSC 829] vide Order dated 4.11.2024, held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not apply retrospectively to liabilities incurred under
- [Supreme Court Decides Whether Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) License Holders Can Drive Transport Vehicles in India](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-decides-whether-light-motor-vehicle-lmv-license-holders-can-drive-transport-vehicles-in-india/) - The case M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 A Constitution Bench of Five Judges, has raised significant legal questions about whether a person holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving license can drive a transport vehicle that weighs less than 7,500 kg. The
- [THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS IBC RESOLUTION PLAN OVER NSEZ ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-supreme-court-upholds-ibc-resolution-plan-over-nsez-act/) - This Judgment was delivered by a Bench of Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih on November 05, 2024, arising from Civil Appeal Nos. 5918-5919 of 2022 filed before the Supreme Court in the case of Noida Special Economic Zone Authority vs. Manish Agarwal & Ors.(CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5918-5919 OF 2022).The Appellant, Noida
- [Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal of Air Force Officer’s Accused of Culpable Homicide](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-of-air-force-officers-accused-of-culpable-homicide/) - Case Overview: In a recent ruling in Union of India & Ors. vs Wing Commander M.S. Mander (Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2011), the Supreme Court of India upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to acquit Wing Commander M.S. Mander, who was tried under General Court Martial (GCM) Proceedings along with four other Air Force
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PROTECTION UNDER CRPC APPLIES TO PUBLIC SERVANTS CHARGED UNDER PMLA WHEN THEIR ACTIONS ARE CONNECTED TO OFFICIAL DUTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-protection-under-crpc-applies-to-public-servants-charged-under-pmla-when-their-actions-are-connected-to-official-duties/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed a judgement dated 06.11.2024 in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. 4314-4316 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that prior sanction is required for prosecuting
- [Supreme Court Upholds UCO Bank’s Right to Recover Debt in its Landmark Ruling](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-uco-banks-right-to-recover-debt-in-its-landmark-ruling/) - The case of Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr., [CIVIL APPEAL No. 1031 of 2022], decided by the Supreme Court of India (Division Bench), addresses a critical issue under insolvency law related to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The
- [DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO DEFER LIMITATION ISSUE IN HOME AND SOUL VS. T.V. TODAY NETWORK ARBITRATION DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-upholds-arbitrators-decision-to-defer-limitation-issue-in-home-and-soul-vs-t-v-today-network-arbitration-dispute/) - Introduction The case between Home and Soul Private Limited and T.V. Today Network Limited [W.P.(C) 14422/2024, CM APPL. 60450/2024 & CM APPL. 60451/2024] was recently decided before the High Court of Delhi, focusing on whether the ongoing arbitration proceedings should have addressed the “limitation” issue—a question of whether the Petitioner’s claim was time-barred—right at the
- [SUPREME COURT GRANTS INTEREST TO AUCTION BUYER AFTER SALE IS ANNULLED ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-grants-interest-to-auction-buyer-after-sale-is-annulled-on-equitable-grounds/) - A double Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 18-10-2024 in the matter of Salil R. Uchil vs. Vishu Kumar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 11693 of 2024 and observed that the importance of fairness in legal proceedings, noting that while the High
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT JUDGES MUST ACT PROMPTLY AND CAREFULLY WHILE PASSING JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-judges-must-act-promptly-and-carefully-while-passing-judgements-and-orders-2/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a judgement dated 21.10.2024 in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Civil Appeal no. 11000 of 2024 wherein the Apex Court held that it is important for High Court judges
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS ACCUSED IN PUNE TRIPLE MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-accused-in-pune-triple-murder-case/) - The Supreme Court acquitted a death row convict, held that motive alone is not sufficient for conviction in the Pune triple murder case. The Supreme Court of India in Vishwajeet KerbaMasalkarvs.the State of Maharastrarecently acquitted the appellant in the 2012 Pune triple murder case, overturning the death sentence which was previously upheld by the Bombay High Court. The accused, who was convicted
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE IRREVOCABILITY OF A GIFT DEED IN TAMIL NADU KHADI BOARD’S TITLE SUIT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-irrevocability-of-a-gift-deed-in-tamil-nadu-khadi-boards-title-suit/) - Introduction: In the matter of N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (2024 INSC 817) the Division Bench lead by Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 24.10.2024, addressed a key legal issue pertaining to gift deed validity, acceptance, revocation rights, and the limitations
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSES WRIT PETITION IN ARBITRATION DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-dismisses-writ-petition-in-arbitration-dispute-in-the-case-of-home-and-soul-private-limited-formerly-known-as-vertical-limits-infratech-pvt-ltd-v-t-v-today-network-limited-for/) - Background and Legal Arguments The central issue in this case arose from an order by a sole Arbitrator dated August 22, 2024. The Arbitrator deferred the question of limitation, whether the Petitioner’s claims were time-barred until the final disposal of the case. The Petitioner contended that this decision contradicted a specific directive by the High
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT JUDGES MUST ACT PROMPTLY AND CAREFULLY WHILE PASSING JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-judges-must-act-promptly-and-carefully-while-passing-judgements-and-orders/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a judgement dated 21.10.2024 in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Civil Appeal no. 11000 of 2024 wherein the Apex Court held that it is important for High Court judges
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE THE HIGH COURT ORDER THAT USED AADHAAR CARD’S TO ESTABLISH THE VICTIM’S AGE IN A MOTOR ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-the-high-court-order-that-used-aadhaar-cards-to-establish-the-victims-age-in-a-motor-accident-compensation-case/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 24-10-2024 in the matter of Saroj & Ors vs. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors, Special Leave Petition (C) SLP Nos. 23939-23940 of 2023 and observed that, rather than using the date of birth on
- [ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT ORDER IN ISHA FOUNDATION VS. S. KAMARAJ & ORS](https://theindianlawyer.in/analysis-of-supreme-court-order-in-isha-foundation-vs-s-kamaraj-ors/) - ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT ORDER IN ISHA FOUNDATION VS. S. KAMARAJ & ORS. The case under discussion is the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13992/2024, which originated from the judgement dated September 30, 2024, in Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) No. 2487/2024. The matter originated as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the
- [ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN CHANDRAMANI NANDA V. SARAT CHANDRA SWAIN S.L.P.(C) NOS. 3050 OF 2023, ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/analysis-of-the-supreme-court-judgment-in-chandramani-nanda-v-sarat-chandra-swain-s-l-p-c-nos-3050-of-2023-enhancement-of-compensation-in-motor-accident-cases/) - The judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India (Division Bench) on October 15, 2024, revolves around the enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim. The case reflects the Court's approach in ensuring fair and adequate compensation for victims who suffer severe and life-altering injuries. This article delves into the key aspects of the
- [SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS A BALANCE OF JUSTICE AND REFORMATION IN SANDEEP VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-affirms-a-balance-of-justice-and-reformation-in-sandeep-vs-state-of-uttarakhand/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India, by a Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice R. Mahadevan, in the matter of Sandeep v State of Uttarakhand [2024 INSC 771] by its judgement dated vide Order dated 14.10.2024, the Court carefully reviewed the evidence, considering the legal aspects of shared intention, and took into account various
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN A FINANCIAL DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-quashing-of-criminal-proceedings-in-a-financial-dispute/) - Introduction: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarina Sen vs Union of India & Anr [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1415 of 2024], in its judgement vide Order dated 03.10.2024 by the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, quashed the criminal proceedings, providing significant clarity on the scope of criminal
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT UNILATERAL CANCELLATION OF AN AUCTION SALE WITHOUT PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE AUCTION PURCHASER IS UNLAWFUL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-unilateral-cancellation-of-an-auction-sale-without-providing-notice-to-the-auction-purchaser-is-unlawful/) - A Double Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a Judgment dated 16-08-2024 in the matter of IDBI Bank Ltd. vs. Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors., Special Leave Petition. (C) Nos. 8159-8160 of 2023 and observed that the period for depositing the remaining sale consideration, as stipulated
- [Supreme Court holds that Cases containing mostly civil characteristics should be dismissed once all parties have settled their differences](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-cases-containing-mostly-civil-characteristics-should-be-dismissed-once-all-parties-have-settled-their-differences/) - A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a judgement dated 03.10.2024 in the matter of K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. V State of Telangana & Anr. 2024 INSC 750 wherein the Bench held that criminal cases which are predominantly civil in nature, can be
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE ARBITRARY TENDER REJECTION IN THE MATTER OF: BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS [2024 INSC 757]](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-arbitrary-tender-rejection-in-the-matter-of-banshidhar-construction-pvt-ltd-vs-bharat-coking-coal-limited-others-2024-insc-757/) - Introduction: The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered a significant judgment on 04.10.2024, in the case Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others. This judgement reinforces the importance of fairness and transparency in government contracts. Facts of the Case:
- [Presumption of Innocence: The Supreme Court Ruling in Vijay KR. Sharma Vs. State of Bihar](https://theindianlawyer.in/presumption-of-innocence-the-supreme-court-ruling-in-vijay-kr-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar/) - Introduction Supreme Court (Division Bench) ruling in Vijay KR. Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (CRL. A NO. 1031 OF 2015) highlights the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the Prosecution in criminal law. Facts 1) On August 30, 1985, Neelam was found dead in Simaltalla, PS Sikandra, District Munger, Bihar. The circumstances
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET AT LATER STAGE AND DIRECTING FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS A VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-accepting-the-additional-charge-sheet-at-later-stage-and-directing-further-investigation-is-a-violation-of-established-principles-of-law/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a Judgment dated 30.09.2024 in the matter of K. Vadivel vs. K. Shanthi & Ors, Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Criminal) No. 4360 of 2022 that a distinction must be made between cases with genuine grounds to delay
- [Delhi High Court Addresses Inheritance Issues in Property Dispute](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-addresses-inheritance-issues-in-property-dispute/) - The recent judgement in MRS. KUSUM TANEJA Vs. SHRI MANIK TANEJA AND OTHERS CS (OS) 174/2018, presided over by Justice Navin Chawla, sheds light on several crucial issues surrounding inheritance, property rights, and the legal implications of wills. This case involved complex family dynamics, where the ownership and division of a property originally bequeathed by
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ASSESSING OFFICERS CANNOT CONSIDER TIME BARRED CLAIMS AND REVISED RETURNS AND MUST FOLLOW THE STATUTORY LIMITS PROVIDED IN THE ACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-assessing-offciers-cannot-consider-time-barred-claims-and-revised-returns-and-must-follow-the-statutory-limits-provided-in-the-acts/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed a judgement dated 04.10.2024 in the case of M/s. Shriram Investments v. The Commissioner of Income Tax III Chennai Civil Appeal No. 6274 of 2013 wherein the Bench held that Assessing Officers cannot entertain
- [SUPREME COURT CRITICIZES THE PRACTICE OF SECURING SIGNATURES ON BLANK PAPERS FOR AGREEMENTS, DEEMING IT A BLATANT ACT OF FRAUD AND MANIPULATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-criticizes-the-practice-of-securing-signatures-on-blank-papers-for-agreements-deeming-it-a-blatant-act-of-fraud-and-manipulation/) - A Division-Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgement dated 27-09-2024 in the matter of Lakha Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & Anr. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 30250 of 2018 and held that the large blank spaces on the first and second pages of the disputed
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ON CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND BANK GUARANTEES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-on-contractual-obligations-and-bank-guarantees/) - A judgement pronounced by the Delhi High Court in the matter of GAIL India Ltd. v. UCO Bank case, decided by the Delhi High Court in RFA(OS)(COMM) 5/2024, highlights crucial legal principles concerning the invocation of bank guarantees in contracts and the conditions required for their encashment. In this appeal, GAIL India Ltd. (Appellant) challenged
- [SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT ON ASSESSING VALUATION, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, AND TIMELINESS IN AUCTION DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-courts-verdict-on-assessing-valuation-procedural-fairness-and-timeliness-in-auction-dispute/) - Introduction: In the Supreme Court of India, a Division Bench lead by Justice Dipankar Datta decided on a matter pertaining to the Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Appellant) and the State of Maharashtra (Respondent) regarding an auction sale. The present matter of the Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra
- [Supreme Court Upholds Autonomy of Arbitration](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-autonomy-of-arbitration/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India (Division Bench) in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. v. M/s Sanman Rice Mills & Ors. SLP (C) No. 27699 of 2018) decided on September 27, 2024, reaffirmed the sanctity of arbitral awards and the limited scope of judicial intervention as outlined in the
- [SUPREME COURT ASSESSES INTENT IN CRIMINAL LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-assesses-intent-in-criminal-law/) - Introduction In the criminal law, the interpretation of intent plays a pivotal role in the adjudication of serious offences. One such case that brings this issue into focus is Shoyeb Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 3327 of 2024, wherein the Supreme Court of India by Judgement dated 25.09.2024 addressed the Application
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PARTITION OF SUIT PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT DETERMINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE WILL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-partition-of-suit-property-would-not-be-possible-without-determining-the-genuineness-of-the-will/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C. T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 24.09.2024 in the matter of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors etc., Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) No. 30324 of 2019 and observed if a Will exists, it must be
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PENDING INVESTIGATION AGAINST A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ADOPT SEALED COVER PROCEDURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-pending-investigation-against-a-government-employee-is-not-sufficient-to-adopt-sealed-cover-procedure/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a judgement dated 24.09.2024 in Union of India and Ors. v. Doly Loyi Civil Appeal No(s). 8387 of 2013 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that sealed cover procedure in cases of promotion could only be invoked
- [SUPREME COURT’S STANCE ON REVERSAL OF ACQUITTALS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-courts-stance-on-reversal-of-acquittals/) - Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment by a Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi And Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in the case of Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1031 OF 2015], where it critically examined the standards for reversing acquittals and
- [Balancing Rights and Accountability: The V. Senthil Balaji Case](https://theindianlawyer.in/balancing-rights-and-accountability-the-v-senthil-balaji-case/) - Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024 IN SC 739) As the Indian judicial system grapples with high-profile criminal cases, the role of the judiciary, particularly the Constitutional Courts, in addressing the complexities of corruption and abuse of power has become increasingly relevant. The case of V. Senthil Balaji, a former Transport
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE LEVY OF EXORBITANT PENALTY BY TRIAL COURT ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED INSTRUMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-levy-of-exorbitant-penalty-by-trial-court-on-insufficiently-stamped-instrument/) - Recently, in the matter of Seetharama Shetty vs Monappa Shetty, Civil Appeal Nos. 10039-40 of 2024 arising from S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7249-7250 of 2022, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti passed a Judgment dated 02-09-2024 and observed that the Appellant would be liable
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ELECTION TRANSPARENCY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-election-transparency/) - Introduction In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court of India recently ruled on an election dispute involving Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, an MLA from Manipur in Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 145 Of 2024 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20580 Of 2023). The case, which
- [SUPREME COURT SETTLES CENTURY-OLD TEMPLE TUSSLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-settles-century-old-temple-tussle/) - Introduction: The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal vide Order dated 13-09-2024, in the case of Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple vs The Idol of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple (Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024). The present matter revolves around the ownership and trusteeship of immovable properties adjacent to the Respondent-Petitioner Property Kamakala Kameshwarar
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES FIRs AGAINST THE MILITARY PERSONNEL BECAUSE LACK OF SANCTION BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-firs-against-the-military-personnel-because-lack-of-sanction-by-central-government/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed a judgement dated 17.09.2024 in the matter of Rabina Ghale & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 265 and 250 of 2022 wherein the Bench held that FIRs can be
- [SUPREME COURT RESTORES THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED, EMPHASIZING THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CASES OF ACQUITTAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-restores-the-acquittal-of-the-accused-emphasizing-the-principle-of-double-presumption-of-innocence-in-cases-of-acquittal/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 18-09-2024 in the matter of Ramesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 and observed the Trial Court had rightly identified discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the delay
- [A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF SUPREME COURT’S INTERPRETATION ON ARREST AND BAIL IN ‘ARVIND KEJRIWAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’](https://theindianlawyer.in/a-critical-examination-of-supreme-courts-interpretation-on-arrest-and-bail-in-arvind-kejriwal-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation/) - Introduction The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide Order dated 13-09-2024, delivered a crucial verdict in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal vs. CBI [2024 INSC 687], a case that has garnered widespread attention not only for its high-profile nature but also for its implications on the procedural safeguards concerning arrests and the jurisprudence surrounding bail.
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS A JUDGE ADVOCATE INCOMPETENT TO DECIDE THE ACCUSED’S DISMISSAL IN COURT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS, AS HE WAS JUNIOR IN RANK THAN THE ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-a-judge-advocate-incompetent-to-decide-the-accuseds-dismissal-in-court-martial-proceedings-as-he-was-junior-in-rank-than-the-accused/) - Are you familiar with the legal intricacies of appointing a Judge Advocate in a Court Martial? How important is it for the officer holding this position to be equal or superior rank to the accused? The Supreme Court in a recent case of Union Of India & ORS. Vs. LT. COL. Rahul Arora CA No.
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES ITS STANCE ON JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO FOREIGN POLICY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-its-stance-on-judicial-restraint-in-matters-pertaining-to-foreign-policy/) - Introduction The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Order dated 09-09-2024, delivered a judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors vs Union of India [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 551 OF 2024], wherein the Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention to cancel existing licenses and
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ACCUSED PERSONS CANNOT BE GRANTED COMPLETE IMMUNITY ON SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS, IF MATERIAL EVIDENCE IS PRESENT AGAINST THEM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-accused-persons-cannot-be-granted-complete-immunity-on-self-incriminating-statements-if-material-evidence-is-present-against-them/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed a judgement dated 10.09.2024 in Raghuveer Sharan V. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr Criminal Appeal No. 2764 Of 2024 wherein the Bench held that witnesses can be summoned as accused even
- [SUPREME COURT RULES THAT EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD BY COURTS IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 ON THE GROUND OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-that-extension-of-limitation-period-by-courts-is-permissible-under-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-on-the-ground-of-sufficient-cause/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice R. Mahadevan passed a Judgment dated 12.09.2024 in the matter of Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited, Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) Nos. 23320 of 2023 and observed that an interpretation to the effect of permitting
- [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UPHOLDS CO-OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN PROPERTY DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-of-india-upholds-co-ownership-rights-in-property-dispute/) - Introduction: In a significant judgment dated 10.09.2024, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Pankaj Mithal, passed an Order dated 10.09.2024 in the Civil Appeal No. 4177 of 2024 in Sk. Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors. involving a property dispute
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS TENANT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT OWING TO WILFUL AND DELIBERATE NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDER OF EVICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-tenant-guilty-of-contempt-of-court-owing-to-wilful-and-deliberate-non-compliance-of-order-of-eviction/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 09-09-2024 in the matter of M/s Sitaram Enterprises Vs Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023 along with other connected
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES INTERIM RELIEF IN K.K. MODI FAMILY TRUST DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-denies-interim-relief-in-k-k-modi-family-trust-dispute/) - In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon'ble Justice Navin Chawla, addressed a critical series of interim applications concerning the K.K. Modi Family Trust (Trust). The Court evaluated applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), including I.A. 31728/2024, I.A. 32679/2024, I.A. 35675/2024,
- [SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS LIFE SENTENCE IN “NITYA NAND VS. STATE OF U.P. “](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-affirms-life-sentence-in-nitya-nand-vs-state-of-u-p/) - The Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Nitya Nand v State of UP, delivered its judgement on 04/09/2024 which was decided by a bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. The Apex court held that the Appellant was guilty of murder despite his claiming that he was part of a conspiracy but
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE HIGH COURT ORDER DISMISSING ARBITRAL AWARD, AS RESPONDENTS FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION BEFORE ARBITRATOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-high-court-order-dismissing-arbitral-award-as-respondents-failed-to-challenge-the-jurisdiction-before-arbitrator/) - In a recent case of M/s. Modern Builders vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Civil Appeal Nos. 8528-8529 Of 2024, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed a Judgment dated 30-08-2024 and observed that it would be unjust to set aside the Arbitral Award merely on the ground that the Arbitrator
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT GRANTED THE DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-an-application-under-section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-1963-can-be-made-before-the-trial-court-regardless-of-whether-the-appellate-court-granted-the-decree-for-specific/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed a Judgment dated 03-09-2024 in the matter of Ishwar (Since Deceased)Thr. Lrs & Ors. vs. Bhim Singh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (C) No.29899 of 2017 and observed that the Execution Court had jurisdiction to handle
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS MANDATORY PENALTY FOR DEFICIT STAMP DUTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-mandatory-penalty-for-deficit-stamp-duty/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N Bhatti passed an Order dated 02.09.2024 in N.M. Theerthegowda Vs. Y.M. Ashok Kumar and Others in Civil Appeal No. 10038 Of 2024 [@S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19165 Of 2021] which addresses the contentious issue of deficit stamp duty and
- [SUPREME COURT RULES THAT THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF PURCHASING A FLAT CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED AFTER EXAMINING THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-that-the-dominant-purpose-of-purchasing-a-flat-can-only-be-determined-after-examining-the-purpose-of-purchase/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 23.08.2024 in the matter of Omkar Realtors And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kushalraj Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. etc., Civil Appeal No.858 of 2023 and observed that the fact that the Respondent company
- [Navigating Trademark Disputes: The Delhi High Court’s Approach in Prakash Pipes Limited v. Jaiswal Traders](https://theindianlawyer.in/navigating-trademark-disputes-the-delhi-high-courts-approach-in-prakash-pipes-limited-v-jaiswal-traders/) - This Article deals with a matter before Delhi High Court titled as M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v. M/S Jaiswal Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Chandan Jaiswal & Anr.that deals with withdrawal of a suit. It was decided by a Single Bench of Delhi High Court Introduction This Article explores the interplay between Order XXIII-A (withdrawal
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE DELHI HIGH COURT’S DENIAL OF SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR WOMEN UNDER PMLA](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-high-courts-denial-of-special-treatment-for-women-under-pmla/) - Introduction A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavi and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan passed an Order dated 27.08.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 3522 Of 2024 [Arising Out Of SLP(Criminal) No. 10778 Of 2024 in Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and overturned the Delhi High Court’s Order, which had previously denied
- [JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF PENSION CLAIMS IN CASE OF DIABILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/judicial-scrutiny-of-pension-claims-in-case-of-diability/) - Case Background: A very interesting matter came before the High Court of Delhi titled as “Ex Sgt Laxmi Narayan Pandey Retd V. Union Of India”. The Petitioner, Ex SGT Laxmi Narayan Pandey, joined the Indian Air Force (IAF) as a Radio Technician in the year 1989. He served for over 20 years before being discharged
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTES BAIL OF THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGATIONS INVOLVED MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND SERIOUS ECONOMIC OFFENCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejectes-bail-of-the-respondent-as-allegations-involved-misuse-of-public-funds-and-serious-economic-offences/) - In the matter of Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. Vs Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 3573 of 2024 arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3945 of 2022, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 28-08-2024 and
- [SUPREME COURT STATES AGAIN THAT COURTS SHOULD INTERFERE IN AN ARBITRAL AWARD ONLY WHEN IT GOES AGAINST THE TERMS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-states-again-that-courts-should-interfere-in-an-arbitral-award-only-when-it-goes-against-the-terms-agreed-between-the-parties/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a judgement dated 23.08.2024 in Pam Developments Private Limited V. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Civil Appeal Nos. 9781-9782 of 2024 wherein the Apex Court held that Courts must interfere in arbitral awards
- [SUPREME COURT UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFICULTY OF OBTAINING SURETIES FOR SEVERAL FIRs PENDING IN DIFFERENT STATES IN A CRIMINAL MATTER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-understands-the-difficulty-of-obtaining-sureties-for-several-firs-pending-in-different-states-in-a-criminal-matter/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a judgement dated 22.08.2024 in the matter of Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that an accused cannot be compelled
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE ORDER OF HIGH COURT AND REINSTATES THE SINGLE JUDGE’S ORDER WITH A MODIFICATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-order-of-high-court-and-reinstates-the-single-judges-order-with-a-modification/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 22.08.2024 in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. etc., Civil Appeal No.9758 of 2024 and observed that the Appellant's termination was stigmatic and did not comply with Clause
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS DISPUTE PERTAINING TO QUANTUM OF LIABILITY TO PAY EXCISE DUTY AS ARBITRABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-dispute-pertaining-to-quantum-of-liability-to-pay-excise-duty-as-arbitrable/) - The Hon’ble Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan passed a Judgment dated 22-08-2024 in the matter of Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 355/2024 and observed that the dispute between the Parties as to the quantum of liability towards excise duty is arbitrable, as the same pertains to
- [SUPREME COURT ASSESSES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER THE NDPS ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-assesses-the-admissibility-of-confessional-statements-and-the-burden-of-proof-under-the-ndps-act/) - INTRODUCTION The case of Ajay Kumar Gupta v Union of India, vide Order dated 22/08/2024 is a Criminal Appeal filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The present matter is pertaining to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). FACTS The Prosecution, i.e. the Narcotics Control Bureau
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE LIMITS OF REGULATORY SETTLEMENTS IN CRIMINAL CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-the-limits-of-regulatory-settlements-in-criminal-cases/) - The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Manojdev Gokulchand Seksaria in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3481 – 3482 of 2024 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 12344-12345/2022, highlighting on the intricate relationship between regulatory settlements and criminal prosecutions. The case, which revolved around allegations of
- [SUPREME COURT FINDS ACCUSED GUILTY OF DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES DUE TO HIS CONDUCT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-courts-finds-accused-guilty-of-dishonour-of-cheques-due-to-his-conduct/) - INTRODUCTION The present matter of Sri Sujies Benefit Funds Limited V M. Jaganathuan, in Criminal Appeal No. 3369 Of 2024 vide Order Dated 13/08/2024 revolves around a dispute concerning a loan transaction and dishonour of cheques. The facts, findings and observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present matter are discussed in detail
- [SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION BENCH UPHOLDS SUB-CLASSIFICATION OF SCHEDULED CASTES FOR GRANTING SEPARATE QUOTAS / RESERVATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-constitution-bench-upholds-sub-classification-of-scheduled-castes-for-granting-separate-quotas-reservation/) - A seven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Pankaj Mithal delivered a landmark Judgment dated 01-08-2024 in 6:1 ratio, with the majority holding that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC)
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ABSENCE OF A RAILWAY TICKET DOES NOT STOP A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IN CASE OF DEATH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-absence-of-a-railway-ticket-does-not-stop-a-claim-for-compensation-in-case-of-death/) - A three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a judgement dated 09.08.2024 in the matter of Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India Civil Appeal No 8605 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that it is not necessary to produce a ticket to claim compensation when relevant facts and incidents corroborate the incident.
- [SUPREME COURT REINSTATES SUMMONING ORDER AND ORDERS FULL TRIAL IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FRAUD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reinstates-summoning-order-and-orders-full-trial-in-government-contract-fraud/) - Introduction In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India in the matter SLP (CRL.) NO. 1500 OF 2024 and SLP (CRL.) NO. 1660 OF 2024 of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. decided on 06.08.2024 had reinstated the Summoning Order against M/s SS Infrastructure Co. and its partners, Santosh
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOLDS INDIVIDUALS WHO DONATE EGGS OR SPERM DO NOT HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS OVER CHILDREN CONCEIVED THROUGH IVF](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-holds-individuals-who-donate-eggs-or-sperm-do-not-have-parental-rights-over-children-conceived-through-ivf/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Milind N. Jadhav passed a Judgment dated 13-08-2024 in the matter of Shailja Nitin Mishra vs. Nitin Kumar Mishra and Anr. Writ Petition (ST) No. 6772 of 2024, and held that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 are the intending couple, identified as the
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT COURTS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO RE-EVALUATE THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE EXPERTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-courts-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-re-evaluate-the-results-published-by-the-experts/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed a judgement dated 08.08.2024 in Nivrithi Bathla v. National Testing Agency and Anr. W.P. (C) 10585/2024 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that it is not within the jurisdiction of Courts to re-evaluate the results published by the experts in academic
- [SUPREME COURT DISALLOWS COMPOUND INTEREST IN ARBITRATION AWARDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-disallows-compound-interest-in-arbitration-awards/) - Introduction In a recent Supreme Court of India judgment on the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 812 of 2014, the legal intricacies surrounding the award of interest in an arbitration case were scrutinized. The parties involved were, M/S D. Khosla and Company (the Petitioner) and the Union of India (the Respondent), relating to a contract
- [SUPREME COURT ENFORCES DIRECTIVE PRICIPLES OF STATE POLICIES AND DIRECTS THE UNION OF INDIA TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF WORKERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-enforces-directive-priciples-of-state-policies-and-directs-the-union-of-india-to-safeguard-the-right-to-health-of-workers/) - Introduction People’s Rights and Social Research Centre, the Petitioner herein, is a Delhi-based non-governmental organization (NGO) and is actively involved in occupational health work, specifically concerning stone crusher workers, stone quarry workers and construction workers. The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to emphasize on the urgent need for systemic reforms to
- [MADRAS HIGH COURT DIRECTS BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST ADVOCATES AND WEBSITES ADVERTISING AND SOLICITING LEGAL SERVICES](https://theindianlawyer.in/madras-high-court-directs-bar-council-of-india-to-take-action-against-advocates-and-websites-advertising-and-soliciting-legal-services/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court comprising of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan in the matter of Mr. P.N. Vignesh vs The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council of India and Others, W.P. No. 31281 of 2019, passed a Judgment dated 03-07-2024 and directed the Bar Council of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT RULES THAT DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE NEET (PG) IS JUSTIFIED AS THE EXAMINATION ETHICS COMMITTEE HAD MADE CLEAR FINDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-rules-that-disqualification-of-the-petitioner-in-the-neet-pg-is-justified-as-the-examination-ethics-committee-had-made-clear-findings/) - A single-judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) comprising of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, passed an Order, dated 08-08-2024, in the matter of Chhaniyara Dharmendra Prafulbhai Vs. Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 9412/2024 and observed that there was no reason to intervene in either the findings of the Examination Ethics Committee
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS AN AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF A COMPANY NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION ON BEHALF OF COMPANY IN CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-an-authorised-signatory-of-a-company-not-personally-liable-to-pay-compensation-on-behalf-of-company-in-cheque-dishonour-cases/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a judgement dated 24.07.2024 in the matter of Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors. SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8849-8850 of 2023 wherein the Apex Court held that an ‘authorised signatory’ of a
- [Supreme Court Upholds the Provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act That Mandates the Payment of Interest In Addition to Duty.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-provisions-of-section-28-of-the-customs-act-that-mandates-the-payment-of-interest-in-addition-to-duty/) - INTRODCUTION In a recent judgement of M/S Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. V. Union of India & Anr. vide Order dated 23/07/2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement discussed the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. FACTS A Notification dated 01.03.2002, was issued under the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) wherein it
- [SUPREME COURT MANDATES COMPLIANCE WITH MSME RESTRUCTURING FRAMEWORK BEFORE CLASSIFYING MSME ACCOUNTS AS NPAs](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-mandates-compliance-with-msme-restructuring-framework-before-classifying-msme-accounts-as-npas/) - Introduction A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice R. Mahadevan passed an Order dated 01.08.2024 in Civil Appeal No 8332 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7898 Of 2024) and 5 other Appeals and held that banks and Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) must comply
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS DIRECTORS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR COMPANY ACTIONS ONLY WHEN PLEADINGS SPECIFICALLY AVER THE SAME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-directors-are-vicariously-liable-for-company-actions-only-when-pleadings-specifically-aver-the-same/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih passed a Judgement dated 01-08-2024 in the matter of National Housing Bank vs. Bherudan Dugar Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. Etc Criminal Appeal Nos. 3176-3177 of 2024 and held that a Complaint against a Company's Directors for an
- [SUPREME COURT REMANDS CASE PERTAINING TO SPICEJET TAKEOVER TRANSACTION BACK TO DELHI HIGH COURT FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF VALIDITY OF ARBITRAL AWARD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-remands-case-pertaining-to-spicejet-takeover-transaction-back-to-delhi-high-court-for-proper-adjudication-of-validity-of-arbitral-award/) - In a recent case of Kalanithi Maran Vs Ajay Singh & Anr. SLP (C) No. 14936 / 2024 along with connected petition: S.L.P.(C) No.14741/2024, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed a Judgment dated 26-07-2024 and
- [SUPREME COURT’S NARRATIVE ON CONSUMER RIGHTS & REAL ESTATE LAWS: DEFENDING HOME BUYERS.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-narrative-on-consumer-rights-real-estate-laws-defending-home-buyers/) - INTRODUCTION In the present judgement of, "Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. vs M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors." vide order 22/07/2024, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India, the significant issues pertaining to delay in possession, deficiency in service, are highlighted. The present case delves into the intricate details of the Consumer Rights
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS HIGH-POWERED SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE ASSET LIQUIDATION AND INVESTOR REFUNDS IN FINANCIAL FRAUD CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-high-powered-supervisory-committee-to-oversee-asset-liquidation-and-investor-refunds-in-financial-fraud-case/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishvanathan passed an Order dated 15.07.2024 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 546 of 2023 in Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar & Ors Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. and held that the High-Powered Supervisory Committee (HPSC) would
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW FRESH EXAMINATION OF NEET-UG 2024 OWING TO LACK OF EVIDENCE OF BREACH OF SANCTITY OF EXAM AS A WHOLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-fresh-examination-of-neet-ug-2024-owing-to-lack-of-evidence-of-breach-of-sanctity-of-exam-as-a-whole/) - In the much-awaited judgment involving question of conducting a fresh examination of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2024 for all candidates, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of CJI Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed an Order dated 23-07-2024 in the matter of Vanshika Yadav vs
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A PROMOTION IS EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE IT IS GRANTED AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF VACANCY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-promotion-is-effective-from-the-date-it-is-granted-and-not-from-the-date-of-vacancy/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a judgement dated 23.07.2023 in Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Dharamdeo Das Civil Appeal No. 6977 of 2015 wherein the Apex Court held that an employee cannot claim seniority just because there is a vacancy in
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THAT THE MARKET FEE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FEE, MENTIONED UNDER TWO DIFFERENT STATUES ARE DISTINCT.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-that-the-market-fee-and-rural-development-fee-mentioned-under-two-different-statues-are-distinct/) - Introduction A two-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, passed a Judgement dated 15.07.2024 in STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. vs. M/S PUNJAB SPINTEX LTD. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10970-10971 OF 2014, wherein the Supreme Court clarified and held that the Market Fee and Rural Development
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PRINCIPLES OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION DO NOT BIND STATE FROM CREATING POLICIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-principles-of-promissory-estoppel-and-legitimate-expectation-do-not-bind-state-from-creating-policies/) - INTRODUCTION The Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation while partly allowing appeals in the matter of Rewa Tollway P. Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8985 OF 2013 on 19/07/2024. The
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS APPEAL OF THE BSSC CHALLENGING THE HIGH COURT’S ORDER OF APPOINTEMENT OF CANDIDATE WITH MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of-the-bssc-challenging-the-high-courts-order-of-appointement-of-candidate-with-minimum-qualifying-marks/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed a Judgment dated 16.07.2024 in the matter of Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) & Anr. vs. Himal Kumari & Anr. etc., Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) Nos.9656-9657 of 2023 and observed that the merit list is prepared
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCONCLUSIVE AS PARTIES EXCHANGED SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCES REGARDING CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-settlement-agreement-inconclusive-as-parties-exchanged-subsequent-correspondences-regarding-contractual-disputes/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in the case of GAE Projects (P) Ltd. v. GE T&D India Ltd. (in two matters ARB. A. (COMM) NO.38/2019, I.A. 17 854-17855/2019; ARB. A. (COMM.) 39/2019, I.A. 17857-17858/2019), vide judgment dated 15.07.2024, observed that if a
- [SUPREME COURT GRANTS INTERIM BAIL TO DELHI CM- SHRI. ARVIND KEJRIWAL AND REITERATES THAT ARRESTING OFFICER MUST ADHERE TO STATUTORY ARREST PROCEDURES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-grants-interim-bail-to-delhi-cm-shri-arvind-kejriwal-and-reiterates-that-arresting-officer-must-adhere-to-statutory-arrest-procedures/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, passed a Judgement dated 12.07.2024 in ARVIND KEJRIWAL vs. DIRECTORATE ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2493 OF 2024, wherein the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal and reiterated that an arresting officer must
- [SUPREME COURT DISCHARGES ACCUSED FROM CUSTODIAL DEATH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-discharges-accused-from-custodial-death/) - Introduction: In the present case of the Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 2395 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6687 of 2023] the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that if an Application for Discharge under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is being
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT MERE INABILITY TO REPAY BANK LOANS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF A LOOKOUT CIRCULAR](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-mere-inability-to-repay-bank-loans-does-not-justify-the-issuance-of-a-lookout-circular/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad passed a judgement dated 12.07.2024 in Ajay Mrig v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 11506/2023 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that a Lookout Circular (LOC) cannot be issued if there are no criminal charges pressed against the accused and if the
- [SUPREME COURT USES IT’S DISCRETIONARY POWER IN DISSOLVING MARRIAGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-uses-its-discretionary-power-in-dissolving-marriage/) - INTRODUCTION The case between Kiran Jyot Maini (the Appellant-wife) and Anish Pramod Patel (the Respondent-husband) before the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2915-2918 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) Nos.672-675 Of 2024) revolves around a marital dispute that escalated into multiple legal proceedings. FACTS The couple got married on 30.04.2015. Within a year,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A COMPROMISE DECREE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER XXIII, RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-compromise-decree-must-be-in-compliance-with-order-xxiii-rule-3-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 15-07-2024 in the matter of Amro Devi & Ors vs. Julfi Ram (Deceased)Thr.Lrs. & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14690 of 2015 and observed that when a Compromise is to be recorded and
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT PUNISHMENT FOR BIGAMY SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATE TO GRAVITY OF OFFENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-punishment-for-bigamy-should-be-proportionate-to-gravity-of-offence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 15-07-2024 in the matter of Baba Natarajan Prasad vs M. Revathi, Criminal Appeal No. 2912 / 2024 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11461 / 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 2913 / 2024 arising
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS UNION OF INDIA TO CLEAR BACKLOG VACANCIES FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN CIVIL SERVICES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-union-of-india-to-clear-backlog-vacancies-for-visually-impaired-in-civil-services/) - Introduction In a landmark judgment of Union of India vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. [Civil Appeal no. 3303 of 2015] vide Order dated 08/07/2024, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union of India (UOI) to rectify the backlog of vacancies for visually impaired candidates in the civil services, addressing a long-standing issue
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT CONTINUOUS READINESS AND WILLINGNESS IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO GRANT THE RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-legal-proposition-that-continuous-readiness-and-willingness-is-a-condition-precedent-to-grant-the-relief-of-specific-performance/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narsimha and Justice Aravind Kumar, passed a Judgement dated 10.07.2024 in PYDI RAMANA @RAMULU vs. DAVARASETY MANMADHA RAO Civil Appeal No. 434 of 2013, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court Judgement of rejecting the claim for specific performance as the Plaintiff
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF RAJASTHAN PRABODHAK SERVICE RULES AS STATE ESTABLISHED INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA BEHIND FRAMING THE POLICY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-constitutional-validity-of-rajasthan-prabodhak-service-rules-as-state-established-intelligible-differentia-behind-framing-the-policy/) - The two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed a batch of 47 appeals vide Order dated 08/07/2024 in the matter of Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2010. These Appeals challenged the Rajasthan
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT TEST IDENTIFICATION IS NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN PROVING THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-test-identification-is-necessary-evidence-in-proving-the-identity-of-the-accused/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a judgement dated 08.07.2024 in P. Sasikumar v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police Criminal Appeal No.1473 Of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that Test Identification Parade (TIP) is essential for a reliable
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION, RULING THAT MINOR INCONSISTENCIES DO NOT UNDERMINE A WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-ruling-that-minor-inconsistencies-do-not-undermine-a-witnesss-credibility/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mittal passed a Judgement dated 08-07-2024 in the matter of Joy Devaraj vs. the State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2013 and held that the law does not mandate a conviction to be based on the oral testimony
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SEEK PARTITION OF SUIT PROPERTY BASED ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-plaintiffs-entitled-to-seek-partition-of-suit-property-based-on-a-settlement-agreement/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti passed a Judgment dated 09-07-2024 in the matter of Naseem Kahnam and Others Vs Zaheda Begum (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1957 of 2011 and observed that once an agreement / deed / document
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REITERATES PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN ACADEMIC POLICY MATTERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-reiterates-principle-of-separation-of-powers-in-academic-policy-matters/) - INTRODUCTION: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Harishankar of the Delhi High Court stated “I am breaching the principle of separation of powers” , in a recent judgement of Dobariya Mohit Ramnikal versus Department Of Higher Education, W.P.(C) 4100/2023, vide Order dated 01/07/2024, as the Court interfered in academic policy matters, which ordinarily does not call
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT COURTS MUST ENSURE THAT DYING DECLARATIONS ARE FREE FROM INFIRMITIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-courts-must-ensure-that-dying-declarations-are-free-from-infirmities/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain, passed a judgement dated 02.07.2024 in Amarjeet vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi CRL.A. No. 755/2002, wherein the High Court examined the Dying Declaration of the Deceased. Upon finding no infirmities, the High Court upheld the
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE DISCHARGE OF DEBT IS ON THE RESPONDENT-BORROWER](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-the-onus-to-prove-discharge-of-debt-is-on-the-respondent-borrower/) - A two Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed a judgement dated 01.07.2024 in Navigators Visa Global Logistics Ltd V. Thermoking Through Its Proprietor Pradeep Khanna RFA(COMM) 18/2023 CM APPL. 8666/2023 wherein the Bench held that it is the liability of the Respondent-Borrower to satisfy
- [HIGH COURT OF DELHI DISMISSES PETITION CHALLENGING ADDITIONAL CHARGE UNDER ARMS ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-court-of-delhi-dismisses-petition-challenging-additional-charge-under-arms-act/) - Introduction In a recent ruling on CRL.M.C. 6424/2022 dated July 1, 2024, titled Inder Singh Solanki Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., the High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which concerns the inherent powers of the High Court. Petitioner Inder
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT MERE HARASSMENT OR USE OF ABUSIVE LANGUAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABETMENT OF SUICIDE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-mere-harassment-or-use-of-abusive-language-does-not-constitute-abetment-of-suicide/) - A single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla passed a judgment dated 01.07.2024 in the matter of Manoj Kumar vs. the State NCT of Delhi., Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.REV.P.) 814/2022 & Criminal Miscellaneous Application (CRL.M.A.) 24925/202 and observed to establish a Charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS PETITIONERS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INSURANCE COVER FROM RESPONDENT-AUTHORITY BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-petitioners-entitled-to-receive-additional-insurance-cover-from-respondent-authority-based-on-the-doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation/) - A Single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla passed a Judgment dated 01-07-2024 in the matter of Annie Thomas and Anr. vs Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd and Others W.P.(C) 7455/2014 and held that based on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, the Petitioners are entitled to their claim to
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS CONSTRUCTION OF LIFT, SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY OF MUNICIPAL BODY ON DEVIATIONS FROM SANCTIONED PLAN](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-allows-construction-of-lift-subject-to-scrutiny-of-municipal-body-on-deviations-from-sanctioned-plan/) - A single-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed a Judgment dated 12-06-2024 in the matter of MS Payal Kashyap vs. Ritu Pahwa & Anr., First Appeal from Order (FAO) 196/2024, Civil Miscellaneous Application. 35286/2024 (stay) and observed that ad the construction of the lift in the residential premises
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT REFUSES GRANT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION IN CHEQUE BOUNCING CASE AS ACCUSED HAD ESTABLIHSED BONA FIDES THROUGH PART PAYMENTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-refuses-grant-of-interim-compensation-in-cheque-bouncing-case-as-accused-had-establihsed-bona-fides-through-part-payments/) - A single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice N. J. Jamadar passed a judgment dated 10.06.2024 in the matter of M/s. Bajaj Constructions vs. the State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (ST) No. 22150 of 2023, and observed that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate's Order rejecting award of Interim Compensation to the
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT REVOKES LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION OBTAINED BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-revokes-letters-of-administration-obtained-by-making-false-statements/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Manish Pitale, vide Order dated 10.06.2024, revoked the grant of Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Succession Act’) in the Miscellaneous Petition filed in Manju Anil Aggarwal v. Rajeev Lalchand Goyal and Anr. MPT/116/2017. The Hon’ble Court
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOLDS ORDER OF REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY DISREGARDING CONSENT TERMS AS UNSUSTAINABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-holds-order-of-registrar-of-society-disregarding-consent-terms-as-unsustainable/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav quashed and set aside an Order and Certificate dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies and Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 ('MOFA') in the case of Nahar Seth & Jogani Developers Pvt.
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT STAYS OPERATION OF ARBITRAL AWARD OWING TO LACK OF ORAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING VALUATION REPORT](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-stays-operation-of-arbitral-award-owing-to-lack-of-oral-evidence-supporting-valuation-report/) - A single Judge Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed a judgement dated 13.06.2024 in CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd and Anr. vs. M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Comm. Arbitration Petition (L)No.5565 Of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the Arbitral Award passed on the basis of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT A PERSON WHO CLAIMS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT MUST SATISFY THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-a-person-who-claims-copyright-infringement-must-satisfy-the-tests-laid-down-by-the-supreme-court/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed a Judgement dated 13.06.2024 in Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. v. Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CS(COMM) 524/2024 wherein the High Court of Delhi held that Copyright Infringement cannot be proved just based on copying of an idea of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES INTERIM RELIEF IN REAL ESTATE ARBITRATION DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-denies-interim-relief-in-real-estate-arbitration-dispute/) - INTRODUCTION A single-Judge bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed an Order dated 10.06.2024 in Vijay Maheshwari Vs. Splendor Buildwell Private Limited and Anr. in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 42/2024 & I.As. 2446/2024, 4723/2024 and held that the Petitioner, Vijay Maheshwari, is not entitled to any relief under Section 9
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOLDS CUSTOMER NOT LIABLE IN CYBER FRAUD WHERE BANK IS NEGLIGENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-holds-customer-not-liable-in-cyber-fraud-where-bank-is-negligent/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the High Court of Bombay comprising of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and Justice G. S Kulkarni passed an Order dated 13.06.2024 in Jaiprakash Kulkarni and Pharma Search Ayurveda Private Limited (Petitioners) Vs. The Banking Ombudsman, Bank Of Baroda (Worli Branch), Reserve Bank of India and State of Maharashtra, through
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REITERATES THAT INADEQUATE STAMPING OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS A CURABLE DEFECT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-reiterates-that-inadequate-stamping-of-agreement-to-sell-of-immovable-property-is-a-curable-defect/) - The Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed a Judgment dated 10-06-2024 in the matter of M/s Celebration Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd. Vs M/s Sartaj Hotels Apartments & Vilas Pvt Ltd. and Others, CS(OS) 612/2012 and observed that insufficient stamping of instruments of transfer created in part-performance such as an
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT UPHOLDS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY DEBTOR COMPANY TO BUYER, AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF WINDING UP, AS BUYER ESTABLISHED ITS BONA FIDES](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-upholds-transfer-of-property-by-debtor-company-to-buyer-after-commencement-of-winding-up-as-buyer-established-its-bona-fides/) - In a recent matter of Helbon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs Ferral Anant Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Interim Application No. 1454 of 2024 in Company Petition No. 924 Of 2003, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Abhay Ahuja passed a Judgment dated 10-06-2024 and observed that a bona fide transaction involving sale
- [NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDS FORFEITURE OF BANK GUARANTEE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF RESOLUTION PLAN BY RESOLUTION APPLICANT](https://theindianlawyer.in/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-upholds-forfeiture-of-bank-guarantee-for-non-compliance-of-resolution-plan-by-resolution-applicant/) - The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) has recently passed a Judgment dated 29-05-2024 in Peter Beck und Partner vs Sharon Bio Medicine Limited and Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 371 of 2024 and upheld the legal validity of forfeiture of bank guarantee by the Committee of Creditors (COC)
- [NCLAT UPHOLDS NCLT’S DISMISSAL OF INSOLVENCY APPLICATION AS THERE WAS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/nclat-upholds-nclts-dismissal-of-insolvency-application-as-there-was-no-privity-of-contract-between-parties/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Member Bench comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Mr. Indevar Pandey of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi passed an Order dated 16.05.2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1034 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2993 of 2022 in Ambika Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shreesai
- [NCLAT UPHOLDS REJECTION OF HOMEBUYER’S CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF PAYMENT TO CORPORATE DEBTOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/nclat-upholds-rejection-of-homebuyers-claims-for-failure-to-provide-proof-of-payment-to-corporate-debtor/) - A Three Judge Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT), comprising of Justice Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Barun Mitra and Justice Arun Baroka passed a Judgment dated 24-05-2024 in the matter of Devesh Raminklal Thakker vs. Arun Kapoor., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 808 of 2024 & I.A. No.
- [NCLAT HOLDS THAT NCLT MUST TAKE CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE REJECTING RESOLUTION PLAN](https://theindianlawyer.in/nclat-holds-that-nclt-must-take-consideration-of-all-facts-and-circumstances-before-rejecting-resolution-plan/) - A three Judge Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka passed a judgement dated 30.05.2024 in M/s. Eagle Fashions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Sumeet Industries Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 922 and 838 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble
- [NGT DIRECTS RESPONDENT- MINING COMPANY TO UNDERTAKE EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES TO CONTINUE SCIENTIFIC MINING ACTIVITIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/ngt-directs-respondent-mining-company-to-undertake-effective-safeguard-measures-to-continue-scientific-mining-activities/) - Introduction: The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal at New Delhi (NGT) comprising of Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Hon’ble Justice Afroz Ahmad dismissed Original Application No. 285/2024, vide Order dated 29.04.2024 with necessary conditions imposed on the Respondent-Mining Company for compliance in order to continue scientific mining in Jarur (Village) in accordance with
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REITERATES FACTORS GOVERNING THE GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL IN ECONOMIC OFFENCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-reiterates-factors-governing-the-grant-of-regular-bail-in-economic-offences/) - INTRODUCTION A Single-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma passed a judgement dated 04.06.2024 in Amandeep Singh Dhall v. CBI, BAIL APPLN. 2229/2023 and reiterated the principles and factors set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be considered while granting regular bail, especially in economic offences. FACTS
- [NCLAT DISMISSES INSOLVENCY APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF PRE-EXISTING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/nclat-dismisses-insolvency-application-on-the-ground-of-pre-existing-dispute-between-the-parties/) - A three Judge Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka passed a judgement dated 06.05.2024 in Royal Manpower Services v. Faridabad Autocomp Systems Pvt. Ltd Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 880 of 2024, wherein the Bench reiterated that corporate insolvency resolution
- [NCLAT REJECTS APPELLANT’S CLAIMS FILED POST-APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PLAN BY COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS](https://theindianlawyer.in/nclat-rejects-appellants-claims-filed-post-approval-of-resolution-plan-by-committee-of-creditors/) - A Three Judge Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Mr. Naresh Salecha and Mr Indevar Pandey (Technical Members) passed a Judgment dated 20-05-2024 in the matter of Superintendent of Stamps & Inspector General of Registration vs. Avil Menezes Resolution Professional of AMW Autocomponent Limited., Company Appeal.
- [OBSERVATIONS OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ON ILLEGAL TREE CUTTING AND SOIL EXCAVATION BY PWD CONTRACTOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/observations-of-national-green-tribunal-on-illegal-tree-cutting-and-soil-excavation-by-pwd-contractor/) - INTRODUCTION A two Judge Bench of the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member passed an Order dated 01.05.2024 in Original Application No. 451/2022 in Anand Kumar Dhyani Vs. Public Works Department & Ors. and held that the Applicant was not entitled for
- [NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLOWS FULL CLAIMS OF FINANCIAL CREDITORS UPON FAILURE OF CORPORATE DEBTOR TO COMPLY WITH SETTLEMENT TERMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-allows-full-claims-of-financial-creditors-upon-failure-of-corporate-debtor-to-comply-with-settlement-terms/) - The Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) has recently passed a Judgment dated 13-05-2024 in Niraj Rathore vs Mr. Partha Sarathy Sarkar and Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 911 of 2023 and allowed submission of full claim of financial debt by the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, as
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS PETITIONER NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TERM OF LICENSE FOR OPERATING RAILWAY STALLS TO PREVENT MONOPOLISATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-petitioner-not-entitled-to-extend-term-of-license-for-operating-railway-stalls-to-prevent-monopolisation/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Datta passed an Order dated 29.05.2024 in W.P.(C) 2501/2023, CM APPL. 9571/2023 and 40 Ors. in Urmila Devi & ORS. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and held that as per the terms of the Master License Agreement, upon expiry of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRAL AWARD PASSED AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-upholds-arbitral-award-passed-after-due-consideration-of-the-evidence-on-record/) - A single-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed a Judgment dated 29-05-2024 in the matter of Govt of NCT of Delhi vs. M/S DSC Limited, Original Miscellaneous Petition O.M.P. (COMM) 331/2020 & I.A. 10114/2024 and observed that the Arbitrator's interpretation of the contract, particularly regarding delays and
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT OWNERSHIP OF MULTIPLE PROPERTIES BY A LANDLORD MUST BE PROVED BY THE TENANT TO RETAIN POSSESSION OF TENANTED PREMISES](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-ownership-of-multiple-properties-by-a-landlord-must-be-proved-by-the-tenant-to-retain-possession-of-tenanted-premises/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Girish Kathpalia passed a judgement dated 29.05.2024 in Dr. Arun Puri & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Rc.Rev. 560/2019 wherein the High Court held that submission of a mere affidavit by a tenant stating that a landlord owns multiple properties, would not be sufficient
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT IN CASE OF NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES, THE LESSOR HAS THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF LEASED PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-in-case-of-non-payment-of-charges-the-lessor-has-the-right-of-possession-of-leased-property/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharma passed an Order dated 28.05.2024 in Harmuny Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Mahuaa Media Pvt Ltd. CO.PET. 213/2012 wherein the High Court held that in case of non-payment of lease charges and resultant termination of sub-lease by lessor, the latter retains the right
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS APPELLANT’S AMENDMENTS TO PATENT APPLICATION, AS IT FELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ORIGINAL CLAIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-allows-appellants-amendments-to-patent-application-as-it-fell-within-the-scope-of-original-claim/) - In a recent matter of Honeywell International Inc Vs The Controller of Patents C.A. (Comm. IPD- PAT) 396/2022, Justice Anish Dayal passed a Judgment dated 21-05-2024 and allowed the Appellant’s amendments to its Patent Application, as the amendments fell within the scope of the original claims. Facts i) In the present case, the Appellant- Honeywell
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TERMINATION OF DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT BY HPCL DUE TO DEALER’S VIOLATION OF TERMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-termination-of-dealership-agreement-by-hpcl-due-to-dealers-violation-of-terms/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 17-05-2024 in the matter of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Dharamnath Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 6509-6510 of 2024 and observed that when cancelling a dealership agreement, it must be
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSES PETITION DUE TO UNREASONABLE DELAY](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-dismisses-petition-due-to-unreasonable-delay/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharma passed an Order dated 22.05.2024 in W.P.(C) 3659/2023 in Md. Shamim Vs. Delhi Development Authority (Dda) & Ors and held that the special remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was discretionary and can be denied if sought after
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT COMPENSATION CAN NOT BE PROVIDED TO A PARTY IF IT FAILS TO PROVE REASONABLE LOSS OF PROFIT.](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-compensation-can-not-be-provided-to-a-party-if-it-fails-to-prove-reasonable-loss-of-profit/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed a judgement dated 22.05.2024 in M/s Divyam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. M2K Entertainment Pvt Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 162/2020 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi set aside an Arbitral Award on the ground that if there is no surety
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DECLARES THAT OWNER CANNOT BE LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT OF HIS VEHICLE INVOLVING FAKE LICENSES OF THE DRIVER](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-declares-that-owner-cannot-be-liable-for-accident-of-his-vehicle-involving-fake-licenses-of-the-driver/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharma passed an Order dated 20.05.2024 in MAC. Appl. 39/2022& CM Appl 7486/2022 in Sandeep Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and held that the registered owner is not supposed to rush to the respective RTO and ascertain the
- [GUEST POST: CRYPTOCURRENCY FRAUD: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR INDIAN CYBER LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/cryptocurrency-fraud-a-new-challenge-for-indian-cyber-law/) - As the frontier of financial technology broadens, cryptocurrencies have emerged as ground breaking instruments of economic exchange. Their decentralized nature, however, makes them ripe targets for fraud, posing significant challenges for Indian cyber law. Amidst an era of digital financial revolutions, the legal fraternity is on the precipice of redefining regulatory landscapes to combat these
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT COURTS MUST DISMISS SUITS BARRED BY LIMITATION EVEN IF THE PLEA OF LIMITATION IS NOT TAKEN AS A DEFENSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-courts-must-dismiss-suits-barred-by-limitation-even-if-the-plea-of-limitation-is-not-taken-as-a-defense/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement dated 16.04.2024 in S. Shivraj Reddy (Died) through His LRs. and Another v. S. Raghuraj Reddy and Others SLP Civil no. 4237 of 2015 wherein the Apex Court held that even if the plea
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS TENANT LIABLE TO COMPENSATE LANDLORD FOR SUCH TIME PERIOD AFTER THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY EXPIRED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-tenant-liable-to-compensate-landlord-for-such-time-period-after-the-right-of-occupancy-expired/) - Recently in a matter of Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF vs Ashwin Bhanulal Desai, I.A. No. 120219 / 2020 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4049 of 2020 and other connected petitions, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 18-05-2024
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER ANY LAW MAY BAR THE REMEDY BUT NOT THE RIGHT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-time-limit-prescribed-under-any-law-may-bar-the-remedy-but-not-the-right/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 17-05-2024 in the matter of Bano Saiyed Parwaz vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors., Special Leave Petition SLP (C) No. 4111 of 2020
- [SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION’S ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-strikes-down-kolkata-municipal-corporations-acquisition-of-property/) - INTRODUCTION A Two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Arvind Kumar passed an Order dated 16.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 6466 Of 2024 Arising Out Of SLP (C) No. 4504 Of 2021 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)& Anr Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. and held that
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR BIGAMY BY ACCUSED OWING TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING MARRIAGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-friends-and-relatives-will-not-be-held-liable-for-bigamy-by-accused-owing-to-lack-of-knowledge-of-existing-marriage/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement dated 15.04.2024 in S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala SLP (Cr.) No. 8529 of 2019 wherein the Apex Court held that the mere presence of friends and relatives in the Accused’s second marriage does
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS A MUST FOR SETTING UP GREENFIELD AIRPORT IN SILCHAR, ASSAM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-environmental-clearance-is-a-must-for-setting-up-greenfield-airport-in-silchar-assam/) - INTRODUCTION A three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra passed an Order dated 06.05.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos 4603-4604 of 2024 in Tapas Guha & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. and held that the necessity for Environmental Clearance acts
- [SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES TRIAL COURT’S DECISION REGARDING THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-invalidates-trial-courts-decision-regarding-third-party-intervention/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta and passed an Order dated 08.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP(C) No. 4034 Of 2023) in Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. And
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS HIGH COURT’S DECISION TO ALLOW ELECTION PETITIONER TO FILE A REPLICATION TO A WRITTEN STATEMENT, AS IT DID NOT INTRODUCE NEW FACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-high-courts-decision-to-allow-election-petitioner-to-file-a-replication-to-a-written-statement-as-it-did-not-introduce-new-facts/) - A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed a Judgment dated 08-05-2024 in the matter of Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1389/2024 and observed that the High Court has authority to authorise an
- [GUEST POST: 5 DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/5-different-types-of-personal-injury-claims/) - In a world filled with uncertainties, accidents and injuries are unfortunate realities of life. When you suffer harm due to someone else's negligence or intentional actions, you may have grounds to pursue a personal injury claim. Personal injury law encompasses a wide array of incidents, each with its unique set of circumstances and legal considerations.
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS RESPONDENT’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WHERE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-respondents-claim-for-damages-in-government-contract-where-delay-was-caused-by-the-respondent/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 09-05-2024 in Municipal Committee Katra & Ors. vs Ashwani Kumar, Civil Appeal No(s). 14970-71 of 2017 and observed that the Respondent-Bidder’s claim for damages cannot be allowed against the Appellant-Authority, as it
- [SUPREME COURT REFERS THE ISSUE WHETHER TIME BARRED DEBTS ARE RECOVERABLE UNDER SPECIAL STATUTES, TO A LARGER BENCH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refers-the-issue-whether-time-barred-debts-are-recoverable-under-special-statutes-to-a-larger-bench/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V Viswanathan passed a judgement dated 08.05.2024 in KP Khemka and Anr v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation Limited and Ors. Civil Appeal no. 6144 of 2024 wherein the Apex Court was of the view that under the statute
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT LITIGANTS SHOULD PREFER ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL METHODS IN PROPERTY RELATED CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-litigants-should-prefer-alternate-dispute-redressal-methods-in-property-related-cases/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed a judgement in Mahendra Nath Soral & Anr. v. Ravindra Nath Soral And Ors Civil Appeal no. 1980 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed for revaluation of the property that had already
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS THAT PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD WHEN MATTER IS SUB-JUDICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-that-property-cannot-be-sold-when-matter-is-sub-judice/) - In a recent matter of Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2991 of 2024, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4134 of 2020, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a Judgment dated
- [SUPREME COURT DISMISSES HIGH COURT ORDER ALLOWING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DUE TO AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATE REMEDY IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-dismisses-high-court-order-allowing-habeas-corpus-petition-due-to-availability-of-alternate-remedy-in-child-custody-matters/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 03-05-2024 in the matter of Nirmala vs. Kulawant Singh & Ors, Criminal Appeal No.2194/ 2022 and observed that the High Court's decision to entertain the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS HINDU MARRIAGE NOT PERFORMED AS PER PROPER RITES AND CEREMONIES, INVALID](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-hindu-marriage-not-performed-as-per-proper-rites-and-ceremonies-invalid/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih passed an Order dated 19.04.2024 in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal Transfer Petition (C) No(S). 2043/2023 wherein the Apex Court held that the Petitioner and the Respondent never acquired the status of husband and wife as
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS CIVIL COURT NOT BARRED FROM ENTERTAINING SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF LAND OWNERSHIP RIGHTS UNDER BIHAR CONSOLIDATION ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-civil-court-not-barred-from-entertaining-suit-for-declaration-of-land-ownership-rights-under-bihar-consolidation-act/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed an Order dated 01.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 1627 Of 2016 in Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. and held that a civil court is not barred from entertaining any lawsuit unless the
- [THE IMPORTANCE OF NATION FIRST](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-importance-of-nation-first/) - With the General Elections 2024 having commenced on 19-04-2024, the nation is now geared up to see the results of the Elections that will be declared on 04-06-2024. This 2024 Elections to elect members of the Lok Sabha / House of People is said to be the largest-ever election in the Indian history as it
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANT GUILTY OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellant-guilty-of-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder/) - A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 25-04-2024 in the matter of Mohd. Ahsan vs. the State of Haryana, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5460/2024 and observed that the incident leading to the death of the Deceased was a result
- [SUPREME COURT AMENDS MURDER CHARGE OF AN ACCUSED, AFTER 17 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-amends-murder-charge-of-an-accused-after-17-years-of-imprisonment/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 22-04-2024 in the matter of Kariman vs. The State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 2193 / 2024 and observed that the Accused can only be held responsible for knowing that the injury inflicted by
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DISTRICT FORUM’S ORDER OF COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-district-forums-order-of-compensation-for-medical-negligence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Aravind Kumar passed a judgement in Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.242 of 2016 wherein the Supreme Court held that Courts should keep facts in mind while determining the compensation. Facts Jyoti Devi (Claimant/Appellant) was
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE THE NCRDC ORDER THAT HELD PROMOTIONAL TRAILERS ARE BINDING CONTRACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-the-ncrdc-order-that-held-promotional-trailers-are-binding-contracts/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar passed an Order dated 22.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 4422/2024 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) No. 14475/2021 in Yash Raj Films Private Limited Vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr and held that promotional trailers are unilateral and
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS DGFT TO PAY INTEREST @15% P.A. FOR DELAY IN PAYING DUTY DRAWBACK](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-dgft-to-pay-interest-15-p-a-for-delay-in-paying-duty-drawback/) - In a recent matter that was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 05-02-2024 titled as Union Of India and Ors. vs. M/s. B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.7238 of 2009, the Supreme Court allowed the Respondent, a Class-I contractor, interest for delayed payment by the Director General
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A DECREE PASSED BY COMPROMISE OF PARTIES CANNOT BE CHALLENGED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-decree-passed-by-compromise-of-parties-cannot-be-challenged/) - Recently, in the matter of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRs Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRs, Civil Appeal No. 5218 / 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.18772 of 2014, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgment dated 22-04-2024
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A PERSON CANNOT BE PROSECUTED IF THE CHARGES FRAMED ARE CIVIL IN NATURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-person-cannot-be-prosecuted-if-the-charges-framed-are-civil-in-nature/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a judgement in The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. SLP(Crl.) Nos.8663-8665 of 2023 and Chandra Mohan Badaya v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. SLP(Crl.) No. 7301 OF 2022 wherein the Apex Court
- [DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION TO ADVOCATE TO SAFEGUARD HIS PUBLIC IMAGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-to-advocate-to-safeguard-his-public-image/) - A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed an Order in Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar and Ors. CS(OS) 274/2024 dated 16.04.2024, wherein the Hon’ble Court passed an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff to stop propagation of false news and posts made against the Plaintiff by
- [SUPREME COURT ISSUES SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO TWO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMER FORUM AGAINST ISSUE OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANTS IN DEFIANCE OF APEX COURT’S INTERIM PROTECTION ORDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-issues-show-cause-notice-to-two-members-of-the-national-consumer-forum-against-issue-of-non-bailable-warrants-in-defiance-of-apex-courts-interim-protection-order/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 15-04-2024 in the matter of M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Gopinath, Interlocutory Application (I.A.) Nos. 81886/2024 & 84009/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 2764-2771/2022 and observed that despite a Court Order specifically directing
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION DUE TO DELAY AND LACHES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-writ-petition-due-to-delay-and-laches/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar passed an Order dated 18.04.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5027 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30152 Of 2018 in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley And Others and held that the principle “delay defeats equity”
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE SUMMONS ISSUED BY MAGISTRATE WITHOUT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-summons-issued-by-magistrate-without-following-procedure/) - In a recent case of Mukhtar Zaidi Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 2024 arising from SLP (CRL) No. 9122 of 2021, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgment dated 18-04-2024 and observed that (a)
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS APPELLANT DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-appellant-due-to-lack-of-evidence/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed an Order in Arun Shankar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1186 Of 2022 and held that the Prosecution had failed to establish the recovery of the weapon at the Appellant's instance,
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSES LETTERS PATENT APPEAL FILED AGAINST SINGLE JUDGE ORDER AS THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-dismisses-letters-patent-appeal-filed-against-single-judge-order-as-the-same-is-not-maintainable-under-law/) - A single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Shri. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed a judgment dated 02.04.2024 in the matter of Mahender Singh vs. the State & Ors., Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) 253/2024 and observed that the present Letters Patent Appeal filed against the
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DISMISSAL OF DELAYED CLAIM BY THE APPELLANT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-delayed-claim-by-the-appellant/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed an Order dated 08.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) No.14974 Of 2022) in K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. and held that the Appellant failed
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 CAN BE ENTERTAINED DESPITE AN ALTERNATE REMEDY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-circumstances-when-a-petition-under-article-226-can-be-entertained-despite-an-alternate-remedy/) - A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Ors. SLP(C) No. 8867 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed and set aside the Order of the Telangana High Court stating
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS AS APPELLANTS FAILED TO GIVE EVIDENCE OF UNINTERRUPTED USE, EASEMENTARY RIGHTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-as-appellants-failed-to-give-evidence-of-uninterrupted-use-easementary-rights-cannot-be-allowed/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 10-04-2024 in the matter of Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. Vs Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9642 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 9643 of 2010 and observed
- [SUPREME COURT REBUKES HIGH COURT’S MISHANDLING AND MISAPPLICATION OF JUDICIAL MIND IN DECIDING TENDER DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rebukes-high-courts-mishandling-and-misapplication-of-judicial-mind-in-deciding-tender-dispute/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed an Order dated 02.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 4626 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.23319 Of 2022) in Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority & Another
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT DELAY CAN NOT BE EXCUSED BY COURTS AS A MATTER OF GENEROSITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-delay-can-not-be-excused-by-courts-as-a-matter-of-generosity/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B Pardiwala passed a judgement dated 03.04.2024 in Union of India & Anr v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019 wherein the Bench was hearing an appeal against the Order passed by the Bombay High Court by
- [SUPREME COURT SET ASIDE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT UNDER THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AS THE CHEQUE SERVED SOLELY FOR SECURITY PURPOSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-set-aside-conviction-of-appellant-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act-as-the-cheque-served-solely-for-security-purpose/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 02-04-2024 in the matter of Prem Raj vs. Poonamma Menon & Anr., Special Leave Petition (SLP) Criminal No. 9778 / 2018 and observed that when a dispute involves the same substance in both civil
- [SUPERIOR COURTS HOLD THAT FINANCIAL LAWS PROTECTING INVESTORS MUST BE FOLLOWED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-financial-laws-protecting-investors-must-be-followed/) - A 3 Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Dr D.Y Chandrachud, J. Surya Kant, J. Bela M Trivedi passed a judgement in State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. on 22.04.2022 where they upheld the validity of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act 1999 (MPID). Facts: An appeal was
- [SUPERIOR COURTS HOLD LITIGANTS CAN APPROACH THE CONSUMER COURTS EVEN WHEN THERE IS AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/superior-courts-hold-litigants-can-approach-the-consumer-courts-even-when-there-is-an-arbitration-agreement/) - The Consumer Protection Act, of 2019 broadens the definition of "consumer" to encompass individuals who purchase or access goods or services online or through electronic means, a provision absent in the previous legislation. Furthermore, it introduces a comprehensive definition of "advertisement," encompassing any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement, or pronouncement made through electronic media,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE HIGHEST STAMP DUTY PAYABLE IN CASE OF ALTERATION OF ARTICLES OF THE COMPANY, IS A ONE-TIME MEASURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-highest-stamp-duty-payable-in-case-of-alteration-of-articles-of-the-company-is-a-one-time-measure/) - In a recent matter of State of Maharashtra vs National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8821 of 2011, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a Judgment dated 05-04-2024 and made observations regarding stamp duty chargeable in case of increase in
- [HIGH COURT OF DELHI HOLDS THAT RENT CONTROLLER MAY PASS ADVERSE ORDER AGAINST A PARTY FOR FAILING TO FILE PLEADINGS DESPITE RECEIPT OF CORRECT SUMMONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-court-of-delhi-holds-that-rent-controller-may-pass-adverse-order-against-a-party-for-failing-to-file-pleadings-despite-receipt-of-correct-summons/) - A single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed a judgement dated 28.03.2024 in Kulwant Singh V. Vikas Ahuja Rc.Rev. 248/2023 wherein the Hon’ble Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Petitioner/Tenant on the ground that the Petitioner had deliberately avoided the service of summons issued by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller. Further,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT JURISDICTION OF SUIT IS DECIDED BY LOCATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-jurisdiction-of-suit-is-decided-by-location-of-immovable-property/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a Judgement dated 22.03.2024 in M/s ACME Papers Ltd. V. M/s. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2664 of 2023 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No (s).499 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court examined
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS APPLICATION TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR TO DECIDE DISPUTES REGARDING IMPLEADING NON-SIGNATORIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-allows-application-to-appoint-arbitrator-to-decide-disputes-regarding-impleading-non-signatories-in-arbitration-proceedings/) - In a recent case of DLF Limited vs PNB Housing Finance Limited and Others, ARB.P. 1190/2023, a single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Datta passed a Judgment dated 22-03-2024 and observed that the scope of inquiry by a referral court in an Application under Section 11 of the
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DIRECTS THAT A PRIVATE PARTY IN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT SHOULD BE GIVEN A FREE CHOICE OF APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-directs-that-a-private-party-in-a-government-contract-should-be-given-a-free-choice-of-appointment-of-an-arbitrator/) - INTRODUCTION A single-Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma passed an Order dated 22.03.2024 in ARB.P. 1230/2023, I.A. 23296/2023 in M/S Techno Compact Builders through Mr. Zulfiquar Ali, Sole Proprietor Vs. Railtel Corporation of India Limited and held that the appointment procedure of an arbitrator involving appointment from
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS COMMERCIAL COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF DELAY IN FILING OF WRITTEN STATEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-commercial-court-failed-to-consider-the-sufficient-cause-of-delay-in-filing-of-written-statement/) - A Single-Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) comprising of Justice Shalinder Kaur, passed an Order dated 27-03-2024 in the matter of Raj Kumar Nair vs. UCO Bank, Civil Misc (Main) 1885/2023 and observed that the Commercial Court failed to consider the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADVERSE POSSESSION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-principles-governing-adverse-possession/) - Introduction: Adverse possession is a legal principle that grants ownership rights to an individual who resides on or possesses another person's land without their permission. According to the Limitation Act 1963, if a Property owner fails to assert their ownership rights for a period of 12 years, the ownership rights can be transferred. However, in
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A DISPUTE IS ARBITRABLE IF THE CONTRACT SHOWS INTENTION OF PARTIES TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-dispute-is-arbitrable-if-the-contract-shows-intention-of-parties-to-refer-the-dispute-to-arbitration/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement dated 19.03.2024 in the matter of NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. C.A. No.-004417-004418–2024 where the Apex Court held that a general reference in a contract to an arbitration clause in another contract
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANTS TO BE EXCLUSIVE OWNERS OF A DISPUTED PROPERTY BASED ON A FAMILY SETTLEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellants-to-be-exclusive-owners-of-a-disputed-property-based-on-a-family-settlement/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 19-03-2024 in the matter of Jugal Kishore Khanna(D) Thr Lrs & Anr. vs. Sudhir Khanna & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1591 / 2020 and 1592 / 2020, and held that the Appellants had been in possession
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS EMPLOYMENT EQUITY AND MANDATES LABOR REGULARIZATION FOR PERENNIAL WORKERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-employment-equity-and-mandates-labor-regularization-for-perennial-workers/) - Introduction: An industrial dispute involves disagreements between an employer and workers concerning the terms and conditions of employment, including issues related to contract labour. The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 specifies procedures for referring disputes to appropriate authorities and also resolving disputes through methods such as conciliation. In the present case, the matter pertains to the
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLANT-ACCUSED DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE OF DISHONEST INDUCEMENT AND CHEATING](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-against-appellant-accused-due-to-lack-of-evidence-of-dishonest-inducement-and-cheating/) - INTRODUCTION A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an Order dated 20.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP(Criminal) No. 9598 Of 2022) in A.M. Mohan Vs. The State Represented By SHO And Another and held that the
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES FIR REGISTERED AGAINST APPELLANT, AS PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT’S NEWS ARTICLE WAS DEFAMATORY AND PROVOKED ENMITY BETWEEN GROUPS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-registered-against-appellant-as-prosecution-failed-to-establish-that-the-appellants-news-article-was-defamatory-and-provoked-enmity-between-groups/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 19-03-2024 in the matter of Shiv Prasad Semwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 001708 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3687 of 2020, and held that the
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES ORDER OF HIGH COURT PASSED WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE TO THE CONCERNED PARTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-order-of-high-court-passed-without-giving-notice-to-the-concerned-party/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a judgement in Suneeta Devi V. Avinash and Ors. Civil Appeal 3955 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court held that Allahabad High Court passed the Order in hot haste without issuing a formal notice to the Respondents therein.
- [SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS THAT HIGH COURTS SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO DISMISS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY CIVIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reaffirms-that-high-courts-should-not-hesitate-to-dismiss-criminal-proceedings-that-are-essentially-civil/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale passed a Judgement dated 12-03-2024 in the matter of Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO. 1570 of 2021 and held that the High Court must exercise its inherent powers
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS POLICE OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW WHILE SUBMITTING THE CHARGESHEET](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-police-officers-to-comply-with-the-law-while-submitting-the-chargesheet/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed an Order dated 12.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1511 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2874 Of 2023) in Dablu Kujur Vs. The State Of Jharkhand and held that as the trial was at the
- [CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT DECLARES ELECTORAL BOND SCHEME 2018 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DIRECTS SBI AND ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO DISCLOSE ALL DETAILS OF ELECTORAL BONDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/constitution-bench-of-the-supreme-court-declares-electoral-bond-scheme-2018-as-unconstitutional-and-directs-sbi-and-election-commission-of-india-to-disclose-all-details-of-electoral-bonds/) - In a recent case of State Bank of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms and Others, Miscellaneous Application No 486 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017 and along with other connected Petitions, a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,
- [SUPREME COURT DECLARES THAT SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE, WITHOUT SEEKING RELIEF OF POSSESSION, IS NOT MAINTAINABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-declares-that-suit-for-declaration-of-title-without-seeking-relief-of-possession-is-not-maintainable/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a judgement dated 13.02.2024 in a case titled ‘Vasantha (Dead) Thr. Lr. V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr. Lrs.’ Civil Appeal No. 3854 of 2014 where the Bench dealt with technical interplay between the title to a property
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT APPEAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-decision-of-the-high-court-in-contempt-of-court-appeal/) - INTRODUCTION A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed an Order dated 06.03.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3865 / 2024 [Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2159 Of 2016] in M/S Shah Enterprises Thr. Padmaben Mansukhbhai Modi Vs. Vaijayantiben Ranjitsingh Sawant &
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A CUSTODIAN MUST PROVE THAT APPELLANTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY ALLEGED DUES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-custodian-must-prove-that-appellants-are-liable-to-pay-alleged-dues/) - In a recent case of Suman L. Shah vs The Custodian & Ors. Civil Appeal No (s). 4577 and 4583 of 2011, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 05-03-2024 and observed that the primary onus of proving the allegations
- [SUPREME COURT URGES PARLIAMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF THE LIMITATION ACT SPECIFYING A LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING APPLICATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-urges-parliament-for-amendment-of-the-limitation-act-specifying-a-limitation-period-for-filing-applications-for-the-appointment-of-arbitrators/) - A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed a Judgement dated 01-03-2024 in the matter of M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs M/S Aptech Ltd, Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023 and held that the period of three years as
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A WILL IS VALID IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-will-is-valid-if-it-is-supported-by-relevant-evidence-and-witnesses/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice C.T Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a judgement dated 04.03.2024 in Thangam and Anr. V. Navamani Ammal Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2011, where the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants which challenged the Madras High Court decision bearing Appeal
- [HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: THE IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/human-rights-violations-the-impact-on-human-rights/) - Introduction: Human rights are basic rights and freedom that are guaranteed to all people regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality, or any other attribute. These rights are universal and inalienable, which means they cannot be revoked or relinquished under any circumstances. Human rights are recognized and protected by international law and many national constitutions, and they
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT SUMMONING ORDERS AGAINST APPELLANT-DIRECTORS CANNOT BE PASSED BY COURTS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF JUDICIOUS MIND](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-summoning-orders-against-appellant-directors-cannot-be-passed-by-courts-without-application-of-judicious-mind/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 23.02.2024 in Shiv Jatia V. Gian Chand Malick & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.776 Of 2024, where the Apex Court held that that the Magistrate cannot issue Summoning Orders to the Accused without application
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO PLAINT, AS IT WAS TIME-BARRED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-amendment-to-plaint-as-it-was-time-barred/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar and Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgement dated 29-02-2024 in the matter of Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others Civil Appeal No. 2886 / 2012 and held the ancestral property dispute provides an in-depth insight into the intricacies of legal complexities that are often
- [SUPREME COURT DENIES RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS DUE TO ITS MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-denies-relief-of-specific-performance-in-favor-of-plaintiffs-due-to-its-misrepresentation-of-facts/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Abhay S. Oka passed an Order dated 01.03.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 9360 Of 2013 in Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr Vs. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs and upheld the lower Courts and High Court’s
- [THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A BLANKET ORDER / DIRECTION CANNOT BE PASSED TO GIVE A TIME-BOUND SCHEDULE FOR DISPOSAL OF CASES PENDING BEFORE LOWER COURTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-constitution-bench-of-supreme-court-holds-that-a-blanket-order-direction-cannot-be-passed-to-give-a-time-bound-schedule-for-disposal-of-cases-pending-before-lower-courts/) - That a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Pankaj Mithal, in the matter of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs State of U.P. & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 3589
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT NCDRC CANNOT REWRITE THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT BY INTRODUCING ITS OWN LOGIC](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-ncdrc-cannot-rewrite-the-terms-of-agreement-by-introducing-its-own-logic/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a judgement dated 22.02.2024 in Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and Anr V. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 971 of 2023 held that it was not open to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to apply its
- [SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZES THAT IN CASE OF TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF A SITUATION, THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT OUGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-emphasizes-that-in-case-of-two-possible-interpretations-of-a-situation-the-benefit-of-doubt-ought-to-be-given-to-the-accused/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela. M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgement dated 20-02-2024 in the matter of Kalinga @ Kushal vs State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Hubli, Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013 and held that to overturn an Order of Acquittal in an
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROSECUTION INITIATED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY PERTAINING TO UNETHICAL TRANSACTIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-prosecution-initiated-for-recovery-of-money-pertaining-to-unethical-transactions/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed an Order on 19.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1007 Of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9800 Of 2023 in Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and held that such
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST APPELLANT-ACCUSED 34 YEARS LATER PERTAINING TO A CIVIL DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-malicious-criminal-proceedings-initiated-against-appellant-accused-34-years-later-pertaining-to-a-civil-dispute/) - In the case of Suresh Garodia v. State of Assam and Another, SLP (Crl.) No(s). 9142/2022 registered as Criminal Appeal No. 185 / 2024, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 09-01-2024 and observed that the High Court ought to
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS APPELLANT-ACCUSED OWING TO LACK OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND GLARING DISCREPANCIES IN EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-appellant-accused-owing-to-lack-of-direct-evidence-and-glaring-discrepancies-in-eye-witness-testimonies/) - In a recent case of Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 21-02-2024 and observed that the non-recovery of weapon used in an offence and non-examination of a
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE HIGH COURT CAN NOT CONVICT AN ACCUSED BY RE-APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HELD OTHERWISE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-high-court-can-not-convict-an-accused-by-re-appreciating-the-evidence-when-the-trial-court-held-otherwise/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela. M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgement dated 12-02-2024 in the matter of Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1162 of 2011 and held that for a conviction to be upheld, the Court must establish that the
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AFTER HE WITHDREW HIS STATEMENT AGAINST GUJARATIS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-defamation-case-against-the-accused-after-he-withdrew-his-statement-against-gujaratis/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Judgment dated 13-02-2024 in the matter of Tejashwi Prasad Yadav vs. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 846 of 2023 and held that it is evident that the Petitioner has not only withdrawn the statements that led
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS APPELLANTS-ACCUSED OWING TO LACK OF ELEMENT OF ‘UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY’](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-appellants-accused-owing-to-lack-of-element-of-unlawful-assembly/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 07.02.2024 in Kishore and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2011, wherein the Apex Court held that due to the acquittal of two out of three Accused by the
- [Guest Post: Immigration to US: Navigating the Latest Changes in Immigration Laws](https://theindianlawyer.in/guest-post-navigating-the-latest-changes-in-immigration-laws/) - Navigating the latest changes in immigration laws is essential for individuals, families, and businesses seeking to understand their rights, obligations, and opportunities within the evolving legal landscape. From updates to visa policies and pathways to citizenship to changes in enforcement priorities and eligibility requirements, staying informed about immigration laws is crucial for making informed decisions
- [SUPREME COURT IMPOSES FINE IN LIEU OF IMPRISONMENT IN DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-imposes-fine-in-lieu-of-imprisonment-in-drugs-and-cosmetics-act-case/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol passed an Order dated 14.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 887 Of 2024 (@Petition For Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No.256 OF 2022) in Palani Vs. The Tamil Nadu State and held that imposing a sentence of imprisonment would be
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS HIGH COURT’S INTERIM ORDERS RESTRAINING ARREST OF RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED AS UNSUSTAINABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-high-courts-interim-orders-restraining-arrest-of-respondents-accused-as-unsustainable/) - In a recent case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Niraj Tyagi & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10913 Of 2023 and other connected matters, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS VACATION OF STAY ORDER IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IS IMPROPER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-vacation-of-stay-order-in-contempt-proceedings-is-improper/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddh Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgement dated 30-01-2024 in the matter of Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik, a Registered Society. vs. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Respondent in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 34892 of 2014 and held that the Contempt Proceedings
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE ACCUSED IN WRONGFUL CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-accused-in-wrongful-conviction-for-unlawful-assembly/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed an Order dated 07.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1465 Of 2011 in Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and set aside the Order of the High Court in the wrongful conviction under Section 141 of
- [SUPREME COURT CONVICTS ADVOCATE FOR CONTEMPT AND REJECTS HIS APOLOGY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-convicts-advocate-for-contempt-and-rejects-his-apology/) - A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, passed a judgement dated 30.01.2024 in Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 577/2007 wherein the Apex Court held that in a case of contempt of Court, the apology submitted by the
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS COMPENSATION AWARDED TO MAN WHO LOST VISION DUE TO MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-compensation-awarded-to-man-who-lost-vision-due-to-medical-negligence/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 29-01-2024 in the matter of P. C Jain vs. Dr. R. P. Singh Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 683-685 of 2023 and SLP(Civil) No(s). 13511-13512 of 2023 and held that the Appellant-Complainant alleged that
- [SUPREME COURT ALLOWS INTEREST FOR DELAY IN REFUND OF DUTY DRAWBACK TO THE RESPONDENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-allows-interest-for-delay-in-refund-of-duty-drawback-to-the-respondent/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 05-02-2024 in the matter of Union of India and Ors. vs M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7238 of 2009 and observed that as there
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION IN CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-cheque-bounce-case/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta had passed an Order dated 29.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No(S) 478 / 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 16641 of 2023) in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr. and held that the onus of rebutting
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES FALSE RAPE CASE ON THE GROUND OF EXISTENCE OF CONSENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-false-rape-case-on-the-ground-of-existence-of-consent-in-the-relationship/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed an Order dated 30.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1368 Of 2023 in Sheikh Arif Vs. State Of Maharashtra and Anr. and quashed the false rape case filed against the Appellant and held that maintaining a sexual
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT IN CASE OF CONFLICTING CLAUSES OF A DEED, THE EARLIER CLAUSE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LATTER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-in-case-of-conflicting-clauses-of-a-deed-the-earlier-clause-takes-precedence-over-the-latter/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgement dated 31-01-2024 in the matter of Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 523 / 2024 and held that if a deed contains clauses that contradict each other and the latter
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE LEGITIMACY OF TESTIMONY OF DECEASED’S FAMILY MEMBERS AGAINST THE APPELLANT- ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-legitimacy-of-testimony-of-deceaseds-family-members-against-the-appellant-accused/) - In a recent case of Haalesh vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1954 of 2012 and other connected matters, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 02-02-2024 and upheld the genuineness of the testimonies / evidence of the family members
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES FIR FILED AGAINST A WIFE FOR PURPORTEDLY FORGING HER HUSBAND’S SIGNATURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-filed-against-a-wife-for-purportedly-forging-her-husbands-signature/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta Judgment dated 22.01.2024 in the matter of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024 and observed that not every deceitful act is considered illegal, and similarly, not every illegal act is deceitful. The Supreme Court has also
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS FOR PERMANENT BLOCKING OF DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITES THAT INFRINGED CROMA’S TRADEMARKS AND DEFRAUDED CUSTOMERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-orders-for-permanent-blocking-of-defendants-websites-that-infringed-cromas-trademarks-and-defrauded-customers/) - A single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula passed a judgement dated 19.01.2024 in Infiniti Retail Limited V. M/S Croma -Share & Ors. CS (COMM) 838/2022 wherein the Delhi High Court ordered for permanent blocking of the websites of the Defendants No. 1-4 which were defrauding people on the
- [SUPREME COURT DECIDES UPON THE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN BAIL PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-decides-upon-the-deceptive-practices-in-bail-proceedings/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed an Order dated 19.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 303 Of 2024 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 12301 Of 2023) in Kusha Duruka Vs. The State Of Odisha and held that suppression of material facts from a
- [SUPREME COURT CAUTIONS PARITES AGAINST CONVERTING CIVIL DISPUTES INTO CRIMINAL CASES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-cautions-parites-against-converting-civil-disputes-into-criminal-cases/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta passed an Order dated 19.01.2024 in Jay Shri & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 of 2023 where the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and provided anticipatory bail to the Appellants namely Jay Shri and Hitesh
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CONSTITUTING AN ‘ADMISSION’ OF A FACT UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 1872](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-factors-to-be-considered-for-constituting-an-admission-of-a-fact-under-the-evidence-act-1872/) - In a recent case of Raja Gounder and Ors. Vs. M. Sengodan and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 13486 of 2007, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatt passed a Judgment dated 19-01-2024 and made observations regarding
- [SUPREME COURT RESTORES THE SESSION COURT’S ORDER OF DISCHARGE CORRECT AS EVIDENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE WAS NOT PRESENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-restores-the-session-courts-order-of-discharge-correct-as-evidence-of-culpable-homicide-was-not-present/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a judgement dated 18.01.2024 in Ramalingam & Ors. v. N. Viswanathan Criminal Appeal No. 212 Of 2024 where the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the learned Single Judge of the High
- [SUPREME COURT REFERS MATTER TO LARGER BENCH TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER POLICE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN PRIOR GOVERNMENT APPROVAL TO ARREST MR. CHANDRABABU NAIDU UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 IN THE AP SKILL DEVELOPMENT SCAM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refers-matter-to-larger-bench-to-decide-the-issue-whether-police-ought-to-have-taken-prior-government-approval-to-arrest-mr-chandrababu-naidu-under-prevention-of-corruption-act-1988-in/) - In a recent case of Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and K. Ajay Reddy, Chairman of A.P. State Skill Development Corporation, Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2024, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 16-01-2024 with
- [SUPREME COURT STAYS HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT’S ORDER TO RELOCATE SENIOR IPS OFFICER FROM DGP POSITION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-stays-himachal-pradesh-high-courts-order-to-relocate-senior-ips-officer-from-dgp-position/) - INTRODUCTION A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed an Order dated 14.01.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 550-551 2024 in Sanjay Kundu Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and set aside the Order dated
- [SUPREME COURT REINSTATES A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST A PUBLIC SERVANT ACCOUNTANT FOR CREATING FALSE RECORDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reinstates-a-criminal-case-against-a-public-servant-accountant-for-creating-false-records/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Judgment dated 17.01.2024 in the matter of Shadakshari vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024 and held that Section 197 (Prosecution of Judges and Public Servant servants)[i] of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW EXECUTION APPLICATION, AS TRIAL COURT ORDER SUFFERED FROM INHERENT LACK OF JURISDICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-execution-application-as-trial-court-order-suffered-from-inherent-lack-of-jurisdiction/) - INTRODUCTION A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar passed an Order dated 12.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 in Asma Lateef & Anr. Vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. and held that the Trial Court had no authority to pass a decree
- [Guest Post: The Important Role of Personal Injury Attorneys](https://theindianlawyer.in/guest-post-the-important-role-of-personal-injury-attorneys/) - Being injured in an accident can be a physically and emotionally challenging experience. To successfully navigate the complexity of accident and injury-related legal processes, personal injury attorneys are essential. Understanding their essential functions can help you appreciate the significance of their role. 1. Legal Expertise and Guidance In addition to offering a plethora of legal
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE ACCUSED IN A 20-YEAR-OLD MURDER CASE DUE TO DOUBTS, IMPROBABILITIES, AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE EVIDENCE.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-accused-in-a-20-year-old-murder-case-due-to-doubts-improbabilities-and-inconsistencies-in-the-evidence/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice P. S. Narasimha Judgment dated 05-01-2024 in the matter of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2010 and held that there is a significant difference between the accusation against the Appellant and the evidence presented
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT DYING DECLARATION MUST BE CORROBORATED WITH OTHER COGENT EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-dying-declaration-must-be-corroborated-with-other-cogent-evidence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal passed a judgement dated 05.01.2024 in Jitendra Kumar Mishra @Jittu V. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr. Appeal No.1348 of 2011, where the Court allowed the Appeal of the Appellants which challenged the conviction in a murder case by
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL COURT DECISION OF DISMISSAL OF SUIT DUE TO DELAY CAUSED BY THE PLAINTIFFS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-trial-court-decision-of-dismissal-of-suit-due-to-delay-caused-by-the-plaintiffs/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed an Order dated 10.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No.8185 Of 2009 in Alagammal and Ors. Vs. Ganesan and Anr and held that the Respondents failed to comply with their obligations within the specified time frame and
- [SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRIAL COURT ORDER OF SUMMONING ADDITIONAL ACCUSED, AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE WAS ESTABLISHED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-allows-trial-court-order-of-summoning-additional-accused-as-prima-facie-evidence-was-established/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 05-01-2024 in the matter of Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs State of Punjab and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024 and reiterated the parameters for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 of the
- [SUPREME COURT REJECTS CLAIM FOR SETTING-OFF MUTUAL DEBTS ARISING BETWEEN BHARTI AIRTEL AND AIRCEL, IN INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rejects-claim-for-setting-off-mutual-debts-arising-between-bharti-airtel-and-aircel-in-insolvency-proceedings/) - In a recent matter of Bharti Airtel Limited and Another Vs Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others Civil Appeals No. 3088 - 3089 / 2020, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti passed a Judgment dated 03-01-2024 and made observations regarding the right of a creditor
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANT-ACCUSED LIABLE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF SETTLEMENT TERMS AND IMPOSED PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellant-accused-liable-for-non-compliance-of-settlement-terms-and-imposed-penalty-for-violation-of-court-orders/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath, and Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 03.01.2024 in a recent case of Satish P. Bhatt. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7433 of 2019 and observed that the Appellant-Accused failed to comply with the terms of the
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE VALIDITY OF INVESTIGATION HELD BY SEBI](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-validity-of-investigation-held-by-sebi/) - A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of present Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, passed a judgement dated 03.01.2024 in Vishal Tiwari V. Union of India and Ors. W.P (C) No. 162 of 2023 wherein the Bench held that Securities and Exchange Board of
- [SUPREME COURT REFERS THE ISSUE OF PAYING A DISSENTING FINANCIAL CREDITOR THE MINIMUM VALUE OF ITS SECURITY INTEREST TO A LARGER BENCH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refers-the-issue-of-paying-a-dissenting-financial-creditor-the-minimum-value-of-its-security-interest-to-a-larger-bench/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti passed a Judgment dated 03-01-2024 in the matter of DBS Bank Limited Singapore vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and Another Civil Appeal No. 9133 / 2019 and observed that if a financial creditor disagrees with the Resolution Plan, then
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN A MURDER CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-decision-of-the-trial-court-in-a-murder-case/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti passed an Order dated 03.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019) in Perumal Raja @ Perumal Vs. State, Rep. By Inspector Of Police and held that a statement/confession
- [DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS THE LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE, AS LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP WAS ESTABLISHED](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-upholds-the-landlords-right-to-terminate-the-lease-as-landlord-tenant-relationship-was-established/) - A single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh passed a judgement dated 22.12.2023 in Nawabuddin v. Shafiulla @ Raja RFA 462/2023, where Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld the decision of Trial Court that held that once a landlord-tenant relationship is established, the landlord has the right to terminate the lease
- [DELHI HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE SATISFACTORY CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONER IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY AND GRANTED CONDITIONAL BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-considered-the-satisfactory-conduct-of-the-petitioner-in-judicial-custody-and-granted-conditional-bail/) - A Single-judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) comprising of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, passed an Order dated 22-12-2023 in the matter of Yogesh @ Govardhan vs. State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Bail Application. 3069/2023 and observed that as the Petitioner has already completed more than half of the minimum sentence imposed
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT QUASHES CHARGES OF ILLICIT PURCHASE OF CAMPTOTHECIN FRAMED AGAINST PETITIONERS AS THE SAME WAS NOT A “FOREST PRODUCE”](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-quashes-charges-of-illicit-purchase-of-camptothecin-framed-against-petitioners-as-the-same-was-not-a-forest-produce/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay comprising of Justice A.S Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak passed an Order dated 22.12.2023 in Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. Formerly known as Dabur Pharma Ltd and Dr. Jayanta Chattopadhyay vs. The State of Maharashtra and Conservator of Forest in Criminal Writ Petition
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT TITLE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-title-in-immovable-properties-cannot-be-transferred-without-a-registered-document/) - A single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan passed a Judgment dated 22.12.2023, in a recent case of Narendra Kumar v. Rajesh Chaudhary and Anr. RFA 282 of 2023 and held that title in immovable properties cannot be transferred to third parties without a registered document. Facts i)
- [DELHI HIGH COURT PASSES ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT’S USE OF DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TRADEMARKED GOODS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-passes-order-of-injunction-against-the-defendants-use-of-deceptively-similar-trademarked-goods/) - In a recent case of Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited vs Landsmill Agro Private Limited, CS(COMM) 568/2021, I.A. 14686/2021, I.A. 16119/2021, Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed a Judgment dated 22-12-2023 and observed that the Defendant has adapted and sold products similar to that of the Plaintiff and further, used wordings,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT IN CASE OF CONFLICTING PENAL PROVISIONS, THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT 2006 WOULD HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-in-case-of-conflicting-penal-provisions-the-food-safety-and-standards-act-2006-would-have-precedence-over-the-prevention-of-food-adulteration-act-1954/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 14-12-2023 in the matter of Manik Hiru Jhangiani Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 3864 / 2023 and observed that after the implementation of Section 52 of the Food Safety and
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT FURNISHING THE REASONS FOR ARREST IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF PROCEDURE OF ARREST UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-furnishing-the-reasons-for-arrest-is-sufficient-compliance-of-procedure-of-arrest-under-the-prevention-of-money-laundering-act-2002/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, passed a judgement dated 15.12.2023 in Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Crl.) No. 12863 of 2023 wherein the Bench held that once the Arrestee is duly informed about the grounds of arrest and is also
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PRIVATE AGREEMENTS / SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF A GOVERNMENT SCHEME, CANNOT BE UPHELD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-private-agreements-settlements-between-parties-that-are-contrary-to-the-provisions-of-a-government-scheme-cannot-be-upheld/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 15.12.2023 in a recent case of Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti and Anr. Vs The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1359 of 2023 and observed that the Court cannot take into consideration any private agreement
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD NOT HAVING IMPLICATIONS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN ARE ARBITRABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-allegations-of-fraud-not-having-implications-in-public-domain-are-arbitrable/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 15-12-2023 in the matter of Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr. Vs Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors. Civil Appeal No.1854 of 2023 and made observations regarding whether allegations of fraud made by the Appellants-Plaintiffs are
- [DELHI HIGH COURT CONFIRMS THAT REGISTRATION BY GODADDY.COM LLC DOES NOT ATTRACT TAXATION FOR ROYALTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-confirms-that-registration-by-godaddy-com-llc-does-not-attract-taxation-for-royalty/) - A recent interesting case filed by GODADDY.COM LLC (Appellant) was decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide Judgment dated 11-12-2023 in Godaddy.Com Llc Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA 891/2018 and other connected matters. In the said case, the Assessing Officer passed an Order adding the domain registration services offered
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT MERELY ABSCONDING FROM TRIAL DOES NOT PROVE GUILT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-merely-absconding-from-trial-does-not-prove-guilt/) - A 3 Judge Bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a judgement in Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2010 on 12.12.2023 and held that mere absconding does not prove the intent or guilty mind of the accused. An Appeal was filed
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS CO-ACCUSED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR COMMITTING AN OFFENCE, DESPITE THE MAIN ACCUSED BEING CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALONE AND NOT FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-co-accused-vicariously-liable-for-committing-an-offence-despite-the-main-accused-being-convicted-for-the-offence-alone-and-not-for-vicarious-liability/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 13-12-2023 in the matter of Maheshwari Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1515 / 2011 and observed that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) introduced vicarious
- [SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION BENCH HOLDS UNSTAMPED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE IN LAW BUT INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE TILL PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-constitution-bench-holds-unstamped-arbitration-agreement-enforceable-in-law-but-inadmissible-in-evidence-till-payment-of-stamp-duty/) - A 7-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna passed a Judgment dated 13-12-2023 in the matter of In Re: Interplay between Arbitration
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS WHEN LAW DOES NOT SPECIFY TIME PERIOD FOR FILING APPEAL, COURT MAY ALLOW THE APPEAL BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-when-law-does-not-specify-time-period-for-filing-appeal-court-may-allow-the-appeal-based-on-facts-and-circumstances-of-the-case/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 11.12.2023 in a recent case of M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd.& Anr Vs M/S Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 2669 of 2013 and observed that when a
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-decision-of-abrogation-of-article-370-by-the-central-government/) - INTRODUCTION In the recent landmark Judgement passed by a 5 Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant in the matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019 and a
- [CRIMINAL LAW BILLS 2023](https://theindianlawyer.in/criminal-law-bills-2023/) - The Centre has introduced three new Bills in the Lok Sabha on 11.08.2023 that propose a complete overhaul of the country’s criminal justice system. The three Bills are set to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (I) IPC is set to
- [SUPREME COURT DIRECTS APPELLANT-BUILDER TO REGISTER SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT-BUYER AFTER 60 YEARS OF LITIGATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-directs-appellant-builder-to-register-sale-deed-in-favor-of-the-respondent-buyer-after-60-years-of-litigation/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 06-12-2023 in the matter of M/s Greater Ashoka And Land Development Company vs. Kanti Prasad Jain (Deceased) Through LRs, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23655-56 / 2018 and cleared that the Respondent was entitled to specific
- [SUPREME COURT: CONSTITUTION BENCH HOLDS NON-SIGNATORY PARTIES BOUND BY ARBITRATION AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-constitution-bench-holds-non-signatory-parties-bound-by-arbitration-agreement/) - A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha passed a Judgment dated 06-12-2023 in the matter of Cox and Kings Ltd. vs SAP India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE LOWER COURT ORDERS AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-lower-court-orders-as-the-appellant-was-not-given-a-proper-opportunity-to-be-heard/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed an Order dated 06.12.2023 in C.A. No.-7963/2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6536 of 2022) in Kanaiyalal Mafatlal Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat and others and set aside the Orders of the Original Authority, the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO GRANT A BAIL FOR A LIMITED PERIOD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-it-is-illegal-to-grant-a-bail-for-a-limited-period/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, passed a judgement dated 29.11.2023 in Manoranjan Rout V. State of Odisha[1] where the Bench held that once a Court concludes that a person is entitled to bail, granting bail for limited period is illegal. The Apex Court was deciding
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE THE INVALIDITY OF SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THEIR DECEASED-FATHER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-respondents-failed-to-prove-the-invalidity-of-sale-deeds-executed-by-their-deceased-father/) - A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath, and Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 08.12.2023 in a recent case of M/S Darvell Investment And Leasing (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others Vs The State Of West Bengal And Others. Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017 and observed that the Respondents 15-16
- [SUPREME COURT VERDICT ON ADMISSIBILITY OF UNSTAMPED DOCUMENTS AS SECONDARY EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-verdict-on-admissibility-of-unstamped-documents-as-secondary-evidence/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol has passed an Order dated 29.11.2023 in Vijay Vs. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2023 and quashed the Order passed by the Review Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE HIGH COURTS TO QUASH THE UNWANTED AND VEXATIOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-it-is-the-duty-of-the-high-courts-to-quash-the-unwanted-and-vexatious-criminal-proceedings/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a judgement dated 29.11.2023 in Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.[1] where the Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the High Court to give protection against vexatious
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT ONLY ON THE COMMISSION OF SCHEDULED OFFENCE UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT CAN CONSPIRACY BE APPLIED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-only-on-the-commission-of-scheduled-offence-under-prevention-of-money-laundering-act-can-conspiracy-be-applied/) - A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 29-11-2023 in the matter of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement Criminal Appeal No. 2779 / 2023 and clarified that the offence of criminal conspiracy, as defined in Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT EXISTENCE OF A SERIOUS OR FATAL INJURY IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONVICT A PERSON FOR THE OFFENCE OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT MURDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-existence-of-a-serious-or-fatal-injury-is-not-required-to-convict-a-person-for-the-offence-of-attempt-to-commit-murder/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 28.11.2023, in Sivamani and Anr v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023, and observed that a grievous or life-threatening injury is not necessary to maintain a conviction under
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED TO ESTABLISH ‘COMMON INTENTION’ OF ACCUSED TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-factors-to-be-considered-to-establish-common-intention-of-accused-to-commit-an-offence/) - A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 01-12-2023 in the matter of Ram Naresh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 3577 of 2023 and reiterated the factors to be considered to establish ‘common intention’ amongst the accused and co-accused
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED TO ASCERTAIN THE AGE OF JUVENILE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-factors-to-be-considered-to-ascertain-the-age-of-juvenile/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 21.11.2023, in Pawan Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 3548 of 2023, and reiterated the factors to be considered to ascertain the age of a juvenile. Facts (i) In the present case, one,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ADOPTION DEED INVALID, AS APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE ITS AUTHENTICITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-adoption-deed-invalid-as-appellant-failed-to-prove-its-authenticity/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed an Order dated 20.11.2023 in Moturu Nalini Kanth Vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (dead, through LRs.) in Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2010 and set aside the Order of the Trial Court and held that the Appellant failed to
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT AN INSURED IS RESTRICTED TO THE COVERAGE EXPLICITLY OUTLINED IN THE INSURANCE POLICY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-an-insured-is-restricted-to-the-coverage-explicitly-outlined-in-the-insurance-policy/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 20-11-2023 in the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukul Aggarwal & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 1544 / 2023 held that the clauses of an insurance policy, which define the rights
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS WHERE THERE IS MENS REA OF COMMITTING AN OFFENCE IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-where-there-is-mens-rea-of-committing-an-offence-it-can-be-transferred-to-another/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Abhay S. Oka passed a judgment dated 21.11.2023 in Nanhe vs. State of U.P. INSC 1011 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 2791 of 2023 held that a person will be held liable for murder if he mistakenly kills a man other
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS NCLT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION BY INTERFERING WITH THE DECISION OF COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-nclt-exceeded-its-jurisdiction-by-interfering-with-the-decision-of-committee-of-creditors-without-any-cogent-reason/) - In a recent case of Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Vs Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited and Committee of Creditors of ACIL Ltd. Civil Appeal No.1527 of 2022, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 21-11-2023 and held that the Hon’ble
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OVER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-supremacy-of-the-constitution-of-india-over-arbitration-agreements/) - A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra and Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y Chandrachud in the matter of Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited SC 2023 INSC 976 -6 Nov 2023 on 6th November 2023 upheld the supremacy of the Constitution of India
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES TO ENTERTAIN WRIT PETITION FOR RECOVERY OF DUES AS ISSUE WAS PENDING FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE NCLT DELHI](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-entertain-writ-petition-for-recovery-of-dues-as-issue-was-pending-for-consideration-before-nclt-delhi/) - In a recent case of Rainbow Digital Services Pvt Ltd Through Director & Anr. Vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Communications and Ors., LPA 717/2023, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Narula passed a Judgment dated 07-11-2023 and held that
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO VERIFY THE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL STRENGTHS OF BIDDERS BEFORE AWARDING THE TENDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-government-authorities-have-the-right-to-verify-the-financial-and-technical-strengths-of-bidders-before-awarding-the-tender/) - A two Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgment dated 07.11.2023, in a recent case of M/S Greentech Environ Management Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors. W.P. (C) 14535/2023 & CM APPLN. 57606-07/2023, and held
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT AND THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-the-conviction-order-passed-by-the-ld-trial-court-and-the-honble-high-court/) - INTRODUCTION A Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Dutta passed an Order dated 07.11.2023 in Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1182 Of 2012 and set aside the Order of the Ld. Trial Court and held that though a statement
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT WIDOW OF A PRE-DECEASED SON DOES NOT HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT TO RECEIVE A SHARE IN A MOTHER-IN-LAW’S PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-widow-of-a-pre-deceased-son-does-not-have-the-first-right-to-receive-a-share-in-a-mother-in-laws-property/) - A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 06-11-2023 in the matter of Sachidhanandam (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.) Vs. E. Vanaja And Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3667 / 2018 held that the High Court's allocation of a 1/16th share
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSED TO APPLY RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO THE REPEAL OF THE MERCHANDISE EXPORTS FROM INDIA SCHEME](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-refused-to-apply-retrospective-effect-to-the-repeal-of-the-merchandise-exports-from-india-scheme/) - A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, passed an Order dated 07-11-2023 in the matter of Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association Vs. Director General Of Foreign Trade W.P.(C) 14779/2021 and observed that repealing the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY NOT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE FOR RETURN OF PLAINT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-trial-court-committed-error-by-not-following-the-procedure-for-return-of-plaint/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharma passed an Order dated 07.11.2023 in Patanjali Ayurved Ltd Vs. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors in FAO 280/2023, CM Appl. 56965/2023 and held that the Trial Court failed to follow the procedure for return of plaint and directed
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN NOT ADHERING TO THE GUIDELINES SET FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE TO A MINOR CHILD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-committed-error-in-not-adhering-to-the-guidelines-set-for-grant-of-maintenance-to-a-minor-child/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 06.11.2023, in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023, and held that the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not adhere to the procedure and guidelines laid down by the
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING CREDIBILITY AND GENUINENESS OF DYING DECLARATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-factors-to-be-considered-for-determining-credibility-and-genuineness-of-dying-declaration/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 06-11-2023 in the matter of Manjunath and Others Vs State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011 and reiterated the factors to be considered to determine the credibility of dying declaration, ocular
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FINALITY, IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, FOR ENSURING JUSTICE IN PROPERTY DISPUTES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarified-the-significance-of-finality-in-legal-proceedings-for-ensuring-justice-in-property-disputes/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 30-10-2023 in the matter of Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.) & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6375 / 2023 and observed that the Higher Courts have the responsibility to rectify
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-insurance-company-liable-for-paying-compensation/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C. T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed an Order dated 30.10.2023 in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi and others in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19992 Of 2023 rejected the plea of the Insurer that there was breach of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN REJECTING A PLAINT IN PART](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-committed-an-error-in-rejecting-a-plaint-in-part/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 31.10.2023, in Kum. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna & Ors v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023, and held that the High Court committed an error in rejecting the Plaint in
- [SUPREME COURT DENIES BAIL TO APPELLANT AS CBI ESTABLISHES PRIMA FACIE CASE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN CORRUPT PRACTICES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-denies-bail-to-appellant-as-cbi-establishes-prima-facie-case-of-his-involvement-in-corrupt-practices/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatt passed a Judgment dated 30-10-2023 in the matter of Manish Sisodia vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 3352 / 2023 and refused the grant of bail to the Appellant-Accused, as prima facie it was established that
- [DELHI HIGH COURT RULES ON TRADEMARK CHALLENGES AND THE CONCEPT OF “PRIMA FACIE TENABILITY” UNDER TRADE MARKS ACT 1999](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-rules-on-trademark-challenges-and-the-concept-of-prima-facie-tenability-under-trade-marks-act-1999/) - A single-Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) comprising of Justice C.Hari Shankar, passed an Order dated 17-10-2023 in the matter of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Mr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors, CS(COMM) 806/2017 & I.A. 14129/2018 and reiterated the grounds for challenging the validity of a trademark and the "prima facie
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REJECTS APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF POLICE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT, AS POLICE FLOUTED THE PROCESS OF LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-rejects-application-for-grant-of-police-custody-of-respondent-as-police-flouted-the-process-of-law/) - INTRODUCTION A Single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi comprising of Justice Amit Sharma passed an Order dated 17.10.2023 in Directorate Of Enforcement Vs. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla in CRL.REV.P. 246/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6428/2023 (stay) and held that the Respondent was produced before the Ld. Special Court in terms of Section 73(3) (Warrant
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS ISSUES IN COMPLAINTS FILED UNDER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 WERE TRIABLE IN NATURE AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE QUASHED AT PRE-TRIAL STAGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-issues-in-complaints-filed-under-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-were-triable-in-nature-and-as-such-cannot-be-quashed-at-pre-trial-stage/) - The High Court of Delhi, comprising of a single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, passed a Judgment dated 17.10.2023, in a recent case of Rajendra Prasad Mittal And Anr. v. Manish Garg and Anr. CRL.M.C. No 5315/2023 & CRL.M.A. 20212/2023, and held that the issues in the Complaints filed under Sections 138 and
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSES APPLICATION FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT, AS IT INVOLVED COMPLICATED QUESTIONS OF LAW TO BE ADJUDICATED DURING TRIAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-dismisses-application-for-rejection-of-plaint-as-it-involved-complicated-questions-of-law-to-be-adjudicated-during-trial/) - In a recent case of Sara Carriere Dubey Vs Ashish Dubey, CM(M) 371 / 2022 and CM APPL. 39340 / 2023, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court passed a Judgment dated 17-10-2023 and dismissed an application seeking rejection of plaint, as the matter involved complex issues of law, that had to
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THAT A RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL IS TREATED AS A DEEMED DECREE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-that-a-recovery-certificate-issued-by-a-debt-recovery-tribunal-is-treated-as-a-deemed-decree/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath passed a Judgment dated 18-10-2023 in the matter of Tottempudi Salalith Vs. State Bank Of India & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2348 / 2021 and observed that a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is deemed
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO LEGALLY VALIDATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, AS IT IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE LEGISLATURE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-legally-validate-same-sex-marriages-as-it-is-the-subject-matter-of-the-legislature/) - In a recent landmark judgment passed by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha in the matter of Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. vs Union of India Writ
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING POST-OPERATIVE CARE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-respondents-not-liable-for-medical-negligence-in-conducting-post-operative-care/) - INTRODUCTION A two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed an Order dated 17.10.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 10347 Of 2010 in Mrs. Kalyani Rajan Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. and held that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent-Hospital and
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED OWING TO FAILURE OF AUTHORITIES TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN LAW FOR SEIZURE OF NARCOTICS AND DRUGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-appellant-accused-owing-to-failure-of-authorities-to-follow-the-procedure-prescribed-in-law-for-seizure-of-narcotics-and-drugs/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 13.10.2023, in Yusuf @ Asif v. The State, Criminal Appeal No. 3191 of 2023, and held that the failure of the concerned Authorities to follow the procedure established by law in respect of seizure of drugs and contraband, vitiated the conviction of the
- [SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THAT PROVING GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IS A CENTRAL PRINCIPLE IN LEGAL ANALYSIS.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-emphasized-that-proving-guilt-beyond-reasonable-doubt-is-a-central-principle-in-legal-analysis/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 13-10-2023 in the matter of Mohd. Rijwan Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 2350 / 2011 observed the importance of test identification parades and underscored the fundamental requirement of establishing a coherent and
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANT-ACCUSED NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE, POST-RETIREMENT FROM FIRM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellant-accused-not-vicariously-liable-for-dishonour-of-cheque-post-retirement-from-firm/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed an Order dated 10.10.2023 in Siby Thomas Vs. M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd. in Criminal Appeal No. 3139 of 2023 {Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12 of 2020} and held that vicarious liability can only be attracted if the ingredients of Section
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE ACCUSED CANNOT SUBMIT ANY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT AT THE STAGE OF FRAMING OF CHARGES TO SEEK DISCHARGE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-accused-cannot-submit-any-material-or-document-at-the-stage-of-framing-of-charges-to-seek-discharge/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 09-10-2023 in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Criminal Appeal No. 2504 / 2023 and observed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) does not provide any provisions that grant
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS HIGH COURT ORDER CONDONING DELAY OF 479 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL CAUSED BY BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-high-court-order-condoning-delay-of-479-days-in-filing-appeal-caused-by-bureaucratic-procedures/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 09-10-2023 in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015 and reiterated the circumstances in which delay in
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT DELAY CAUSED DURING COVID-19 CAN BE CONDONED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-delay-caused-during-covid-19-can-be-condoned-under-section-5-of-the-limitation-act/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a Judgment dated 03-10-2023 in the matter of Aditya Khaitan & Ors. vs. IL and FS Financial Services Limited Civil Appeal Nos. 6411-6418 / 2023 and observed that in the Suo Motu proceedings titled “In Re: Cognizance for
- [SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOUR OF NRI LANDLORD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-nri-landlord/) - INTRODUCTION A Division Bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice S.V.N Bhatti passed an Order dated 05.10.2023 in Smt. Shanta Rani Widow of Amrit Lal Vs. Nasib Kaur Widow of Harbhajan Singh in Civil Appeal No. 7328 Of 2010 and held that the Appeal filed by the tenant in the Eviction
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS TO GRANT RELIEF TO AUCTION PURCHASER WHO HAS VIOLATED THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-exercise-inherent-powers-to-grant-relief-to-auction-purchaser-who-has-violated-the-substantive-law/) - In a recent case of Union Bank of India vs Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others and M/s Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd. Miscellaneous Application No. 1735 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 1902 of 2020, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CONDUCT ARBITRARY AS IT FAILED TO FURNISH GROUNDS OF ARREST](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-enforcement-directorate-conduct-arbitrary-as-it-failed-to-furnish-grounds-of-arrest/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 03-10-2023 in the matter of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 / 2022 and observed that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must explain reasons for an arrest being made
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS HIGH COURT ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION AS THE CONTRACT INVOLVED COMPLEX TECHNICAL ISSUES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-high-court-order-of-dismissal-of-writ-petition-as-the-contract-involved-complex-technical-issues/) - INTRODUCTION A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra passed a Judgement dated 18.09.2023 in BTL EPC Ltd Vs. Macawber Beekay Pvt Ltd and Others in Civil Appeal No 5969 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 18574 of 2023)
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS HIGH COURT CANNOT EXERCISE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AGAINST APPEALABLE ORDERS OF LOWER COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-high-court-cannot-exercise-revisional-jurisdiction-against-appealable-orders-of-lower-court/) - In a recent case of Rahimal Bathu and Others vs Ashiyal Beevi, Civil Appeal No. 006232 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra passed a Judgment dated 26-09-2023 and observed that the High Court cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction against an appealable order
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT UNREGISTERED LEASE AGREEMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE NATURE OF POSSESSION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-unregistered-lease-agreements-cannot-be-used-as-evidence-to-determine-nature-of-possession/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath passed a Judgment dated 25-09-2023 in the matter of M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 15774 / 2022 and observed that an unregistered lease agreement cannot be used as
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED OWING TO LACK OF EVIDENCE OF DOWRY DEATH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-appellant-accused-owing-to-lack-of-evidence-of-dowry-death/) - A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 27.09.2023, in Phulel Singh v. The State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2010, and held that the Appellant-Accused ought to be acquitted as the Prosecution failed to
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE VALIDITY OF A WILL AS THE SAME WAS PROVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT 1925](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-validity-of-a-will-as-the-same-was-proved-under-the-provisions-of-the-indian-succession-act-1925/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 21-09-2023 in the matter of Meena Pradhan & Ors. vs. Kamla Pradhan & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3351 / 2014 and observed that the execution of a Will, once the Testator has passed
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE APPELLANTS-ACCUSED OWING TO YAWNING GAPS IN THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-appellants-accused-owing-to-yawning-gaps-in-the-chain-of-circumstantial-evidence/) - A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 21.09.2023, in Rajesh & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 793-794 of 2022, and held that as the chain of circumstantial evidence failed to directly connect the
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE ELEMENTS TO BE PROVED BY A PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR PASSING-OFF IN A TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-elements-to-be-proved-by-a-plaintiff-in-an-action-for-passing-off-in-a-trademark-infringement-case/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 14-09-2023 in the matter of Brihan Kumar Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd vs Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Civil Appeal No. 2768 of 2023 and made observations regarding the elements to be proved
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS SECTION 6A OF THE DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT 1946 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-section-6a-of-the-delhi-special-police-establishment-act-1946-as-unconstitutional-from-the-date-of-its-inception/) - In a recent judgment dated 11-09-2023 passed by the Constitution Bench of 5 Judges, in the matter of CBI vs R.R. Kishore Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2007, held that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (DSPE Act) as unconstitutional with retrospective effect i.e. 2003, when the said Act was amended.
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE NEW AMALGAMATED COMPANY CANNOT BE LIABLE FOR THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF OFFICIALS OF THE ERSTWHILE COMPANY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-new-amalgamated-company-cannot-be-liable-for-the-wrongful-acts-of-officials-of-the-erstwhile-company/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 11-09-2023 in the matter of Religare Finvest Limited Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2242 of 2023 and DBS Bank India Limited Vs State of NCT of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT IBC DOES NOT ALLOW ADMISSION OF CLAIMS POST-APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PLAN BY THE COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-ibc-does-not-allow-admission-of-claims-post-approval-of-resolution-plan-by-the-committee-of-creditors/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 11-09-2023 in the matter of M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 5590 / 2021 and observed the potential consequences of accepting claims after approval of the resolution
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE FIXED FOR PERFORMANCE OR FROM THE DATE WHEN THE PARTY HAD NOTICE OF REFUSAL OF PERFORMANCE BY THE OTHER PARTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-the-limitation-period-for-filing-suit-for-specific-performance-is-three-years-from-the-date-fixed-for-performance-or-from-the-date-when-the-party-had-notice-of-refusal-of-p/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 12.09.2023, in A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali And Others, Civil Appeal No. 5342 of 2023, and observed that the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance is three years under the
- [THE G20 SUMMIT 2023 TAKEAWAYS](https://theindianlawyer.in/the-g20-summit-2023-takeaways/) - The G20 Summit has definitely drawn the attention of the world to India and its leadership capabilities. It has given the country a boost in international recognition as being a country that will participate in global development in the years to come. It also showcased India as a good investment destination. The G20 Summit 2023 is the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE TAXES ON TRANSFER/ASSIGNMENT OF INSURANCE POLICY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-life-insurance-corporation-of-india-does-not-have-authority-to-impose-taxes-on-transfer-assignment-of-insurance-policy/) - In a recent case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.4095 of 2012, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 06.09.2023 and held that the Life Insurance Corporation of India had no authority
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ACTS COMMITTED IN THE SPUR-OF-MOMENT RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A VICTIM, AMOUNT TO CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-acts-committed-in-the-spur-of-moment-resulting-in-the-death-of-a-victim-amount-to-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 06.09.2023, in N. Ram Kumar v. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 2006 of 2023, and held that if an act is committed in a spur-of-the-moment or during an
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ISSUING A CHEQUE CONSTITUTES A BINDING PROMISE TO PAY, EVEN IF DEBT IS TIME-BARRED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-issuing-a-cheque-constitutes-a-binding-promise-to-pay-even-if-debt-is-time-barred/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 06-09-2023 in the matter of K. Hymavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2743 / 2023 and observed that a cheque, even though issued for a time-barred debt,
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS LIQUIDATOR NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING APPELLANT’S HIGHEST BID AND CONDUCTING FRESH AUCTION ON MERE EXPECTATION OF OBTAINING A HIGHER PRICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-liquidator-not-justified-in-rejecting-appellants-highest-bid-and-conducting-fresh-auction-on-mere-expectation-of-obtaining-a-higher-price/) - In a recent case of Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited Vs Punjab National Bank And Anr. Civil Appeal No.7906 of 2021, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 06-09-2023 and held that the Liquidator was not justified in rejecting the
- [HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT A PLAINT NOT SUPPORTED BY A STATEMENT OF TRUTH CANNOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/high-court-holds-that-a-plaint-not-supported-by-a-statement-of-truth-cannot-be-read-in-evidence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the matter of M/S AV Industries vs. M/S Neo Neon Electrical Pvt Ltd, Regular First Appeal (COMM) 2/2021, passed a judgement dated 01/09/2023 and held that a pleading that
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE COMPLEX ISSUES INVOLVED IN PARTITION / DIVISION OF MITAKSHARA COPARCENARY PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-the-complex-issues-involved-in-partition-division-of-mitakshara-coparcenary-property/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C. T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 01-09-2023 in the matter of Dehra vs. Vishal and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 4494 / 2010 and clarified and resolved the complex issue pertaining to the division of Mitakshara coparcenary property following the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED FIR FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A DOWRY HARASSMENT CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-ought-to-have-quashed-fir-filed-against-the-accused-based-on-false-allegations-made-in-a-dowry-harassment-case/) - A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar and S.V.N. Bhatti passed a Judgment dated 31.08.2023 in a recent case of Abhishek Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 1457 of 2015 and observed that the High Court ought to have quashed the FIR filed against the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS HIGH COURT ERRED IN INTERFERING WITH TRIAL COURT ORDER OF ISSUE OF SUMMONS TO ACCUSED, AS PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS ESTABLISHED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-high-court-erred-in-interfering-with-trial-court-order-of-issue-of-summons-to-accused-as-prima-facie-case-was-established/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta passed an Order dated 29.08.2023 in Zunaid Vs. State of U.P and Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2628-2629 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C.R.L) Nos. 8506-8507/2022) and held that the High Court ought not to have interfered
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS NON-SUPPLY OF TRANSLATED COPIES OF CHARGESHEETS TO ACCUSED WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FAILURE OF JUSTICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-non-supply-of-translated-copies-of-chargesheets-to-accused-would-not-amount-to-failure-of-justice/) - In a recent case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs Narottam Dhakad & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2592 of 2023 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sunil Singh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 25-08-2023 and observed that non-supply of
- [SUPREME COURT IMPOSES ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR BAIL OF ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-imposes-additional-conditions-for-bail-of-accused/) - In the matter of XXX Vs The Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar and Anr, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3482 Of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5192 Of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5131 Of 2023 And Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5099 Of 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice
- [INDIA READY TO OVERHAUL THE BRITISH-ERA CRIMINAL LAWS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CRIMINAL LEGISLATIONS](https://theindianlawyer.in/india-ready-to-overhaul-the-british-era-criminal-laws-an-overview-of-the-proposed-criminal-legislations/) - While delivering the Independence Day speech in 2022 last year, Hon’ble Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, promised to transform the Criminal Delivery Justice System in India which was one of the major agendas on the Government’s “Panch Prans”(Five Vows) Scheme. That said, the bold step could only be taken by replacing the previous Colonial-Era Laws
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRATION AWARD THAT ALLOWS FOREIGN COMPANY DAMAGES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-arbitration-award-that-allows-foreign-company-damages/) - INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Arvind Kumar passed a Judgement dated 18.08.2023 in H. J. Baker and Bros. Inc. (Baker) V. The Minerals and Metals Trade Corporation, (MMTC) in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5286-5287 OF 2023 [ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 12870-12871 OF 2011] and upheld the award passed
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT UNDER APPELLATE POWERS, CANNOT MAKE SUBSTITUTION OF FINDINGS CONTRARY TO THE PROPER FINDINGS OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-under-appellate-powers-cannot-make-substitution-of-findings-contrary-to-the-proper-findings-of-arbitral-tribunal/) - A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 24.08.2023 in a recent case of M/s Hindustan Construction Company Limited Vs M/S National Highways Authority of India in Civil Appeal No. 4658 of 2023 and observed that the Division Bench of the High Court
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT AN APPEAL DISMISSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PRECEDENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-an-appeal-dismissal-without-explanation-can-not-be-considered-as-a-precedent/) - A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi, and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a Judgment dated 18-08-2023 in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 1434/2023, Experion Developers Private Limited Vs. Himanshu Dewan, Sonali Dewan, and Others reiterated that the merger principle[1] cannot be applicable universally but varies based
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT EXECUTION PETITION CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS INEXECUTABLE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT DECREE HOLDER LOST POSSESSION TO AN ENCROACHER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-execution-petition-cannot-be-dismissed-as-inexecutable-merely-on-the-ground-that-decree-holder-lost-possession-to-an-encroacher/) - In a recent case of Smt. Ved Kumari (Dead Through her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Civil Appeals No. 5409 - 5410 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 24-08-2023
- [SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE EX PARTE DECREE AND CLARIFIES APPLICATION OF CPC RULES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-sets-aside-ex-parte-decree-and-clarifies-application-of-cpc-rules/) - INTRODUCTION A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed an Judgment dated 16.08.2023 in Y.P Lele Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5155 of 2023, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3543 of 2019 and held that the High
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS OF CO-ACCUSED INADEQUATE TO ORDER CONVICTION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-disclosure-statements-of-co-accused-inadequate-to-order-conviction-of-accused-appellants/) - In the matter of Manoj Kumar Soni Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.1030/2023 and Kallu @ Habib Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.1458/2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 11-08-2023 and made observations
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE OF THE SUIT PROPERTY FOR CLAIMING PARTITION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-burden-of-proof-lies-on-the-plaintiff-to-establish-the-nature-of-the-suit-property-for-claiming-partition/) - A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi, and S.V.N. Bhatti passed a Judgment dated 16.08.2023 in a recent case of H. Vasanthi Vs A. Santha (Dead) Through Lrs. And Others in Civil Appeal No. 7374 of 2008 and observed that the Plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT COURTS HAVE LIMITED SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN ARBITRAL AWARDS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-courts-have-limited-scope-of-judicial-interference-in-arbitral-awards/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 11-08-2023 in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 3798/2023, M/S Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union Of India & Ors and reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. FACTS:
- [GUEST POST: DO YOU SUSPECT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE? HERE’S WHAT TO DO](https://theindianlawyer.in/guest-post-do-you-suspect-medical-malpractice-heres-what-to-do/) - When you seek medical care, you place immense trust in healthcare professionals to provide you with competent and compassionate treatment. However, medical errors and negligence can sometimes occur, leading to devastating consequences for patients and their families. If you suspect that you or a loved one may have been a victim of medical malpractice, it
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE ACCUSED AS PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH INTENTIONAL INSULT CAUSING PROVOCATION TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-accused-as-prosecution-failed-to-establish-intentional-insult-causing-provocation-to-commit-an-offence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 08.08.2023, in Mohammad Wajid & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023, and held that mere abuse, impoliteness or rudeness may not qualify as an intentional insult
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS INSURER DEFICIENT IN SERVICES FOR WRONGFUL REPUDIATION OF CLAIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-insurer-deficient-in-services-for-wrongful-repudiation-of-claim/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 08-08-2023 in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 2042/2012, S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and held that the Respondent-Insurer wrongly repudiated the insurance claim of the Appellant by
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED AS THE PROSECUTION’S CASE APPEARED CONCOCTED AND FABRICATED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-against-accused-as-the-prosecutions-case-appeared-concocted-and-fabricated/) - INTRODUCTION A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice J. B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 08.08.2023 in Haji Iqbal @ Bala Through S.P.O.A Vs. State of U.P & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 2345 of 2023 {Arising out of S.L.P (Criminal) No. 3613 of 2023} and quashed
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPUDIATION OF MARINE POLICY DUE TO NON-DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-insurance-companys-repudiation-of-marine-policy-due-to-non-disclosure-of-material-fact/) - In a recent case of Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. vs IFFCO – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7228 of 2015, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh passed a Judgment dated 09-08-2023 and observed that in case of failure to disclose essential
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS MERITS OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE APPRECIATED AT THE STAGE OF SUMMONING OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 319 CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-merits-of-evidence-cannot-be-appreciated-at-the-stage-of-summoning-other-accused-persons-under-section-319-crpc/) - Introduction: In the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr, in Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice C T Ravikumar passed a Judgement dated 28-07-2023 and observed that merits of evidence have to be appreciated only
- [WHY SUPREME COURT STAYED THE ORDER IN RAHUL GANDHI MATTER](https://theindianlawyer.in/why-supreme-court-stayed-the-order-in-rahul-gandhi-matter/) - Shri. Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament, who represents the Constituency of Wayanad, Kerala, was convicted by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (CJM) in Criminal Case 18712 / 2019, vide Order dated 23-03-2023 (Order of Conviction) for allegedly giving a speech in Bengaluru on 13-04-2019, addressing people with the Modi surname as offenders citing examples
- [SUPREME COURT RECOGNISES REGISTERED SALE DEED CHALLENGED BY SELLER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-recognises-registered-sale-deed-challenged-by-seller/) - In a recent case of Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs vs Ram Bachan Devi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 10412 of 2013, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 31-07-2023 and observed that in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
- [SUPREME COURT REVERSES BAIL GRANTED TO ACCUSED IN HONOUR KILLING CASE ON THE GROUND OF NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reverses-bail-granted-to-accused-in-honour-killing-case-on-the-ground-of-nature-and-seriousness-of-offence/) - Introduction- A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed a Judgment dated 24-07-2023, in Rohit Bishnoi Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 2078 of 2023 and observed that the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan of allowing the
- [SUPREME COURT ALLOWS 75% OF INSURANCE CLAIM ON A NON-STANDARD BASIS, DESPITE CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE INSURED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-allows-75-of-insurance-claim-on-a-non-standard-basis-despite-carelessness-on-the-part-of-the-insured/) - A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.K. Maheshwari, and K.V. Viswanathan passed a Judgment dated 31.07.2023 in a recent case of Ashok Kumar Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2023 and observed that in respect of repudiation of insurance claim, in certain cases, even though the
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS GOVERNMENT’S AUTHORITY TO AMEND MINING LEASE RULES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-governments-authority-to-amend-mining-lease-rules/) - INTRODUCTION A Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M Sundresh passed a Judgment dated 01/08/2023 in The State of Rajasthan & Ors. V. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat ETC. ETC in C.A. Nos. 1212-1214/2016, C.A. Nos. 1207-1211/2016, C.A. Nos. 1202-1206/2016, C.A. Nos. 1182-1186/2016, C.A. Nos. 1172-1176/2016, C.A. Nos. 1177-1181/2016, C.A. Nos.
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE IMPORTANCE OF SAFEGUARDING PERSONAL LIBERTY WHILE GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-importance-of-safeguarding-personal-liberty-while-granting-anticipatory-bail/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2207 OF 2023 [Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 3433 OF 2023] passed a Judgment dated 31-07-2023 in the matter MD. ASFAK ALAM (Appellants) vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. (Respondents) allowing an Appeal
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT AD VALOREM COURT FEES CAN BE DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WAS A PARTY TO THE SALE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-ad-valorem-court-fees-can-be-decided-after-considering-whether-the-plaintiff-was-a-party-to-the-sale/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, passed a judgment dated 28.07.2023 in the matter of B.P. Naagar & Ors. Vs. Raj Pal Sharma [Civil Appeal No. (SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020) of 2023], wherein, the Bench observed that the central focus of this case was a
- [SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZES THAT GRANTING OF SPECIAL LEAVE UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ALLOWED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-emphasizes-that-granting-of-special-leave-under-article-136-of-the-constitution-is-allowed-only-in-exceptional-circumstances/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023 passed a Judgment dated 26-07-2023 in the matter of M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. made observations regarding the unsettled question as to
- [SUPREME COURT REDUCES SENTENCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reduces-sentences-in-the-interest-of-justice/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, passed a judgment dated 27.07.2023 in the matter of No.15138812Y L/Nk Gurusewak Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2023], wherein, the Bench observed that in the eyes of the law, the term 'cruel manner' has a subjective meaning.
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT PARTIES TO THE SUIT WHO WERE NOT PART OF THE MOU WHICH HAD ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE MOU](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-parties-to-the-suit-who-were-not-part-of-the-mou-which-had-arbitration-clause-cannot-be-bound-by-the-terms-of-the-mou/) - A Three Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed a Judgment dated 25.07.2023 in a recent case of Vinod Kumar Sachdeva (Dead) Thr Lrs Vs Ashok Kumar Sachdeva & Ors Civil Appeal No. 4656-4657 of 2023 observed that the Parties to the
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF ‘SECOND APPEAL’ IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-the-scope-of-provisions-of-second-appeal-in-the-state-of-punjab-and-haryana/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 24-07-2023 in the matter of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through LRs Vs Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through LRs, Civil Appeal Nos.10556-­10558 of 2010 and made observations regarding the scope of ‘second appeal’ in the State of Punjab and Haryana. Facts i) In the present
- [GUEST POST: SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT ON THE OVERRIDING EFFECT OF INSOLVENCY LAWS OVER THE ELECTRICITY ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-courts-verdict-on-the-overriding-effect-of-insolvency-laws-over-the-electricity-act/) - The Supreme Court recently issued a landmark verdict in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7976 of 2019 on 17-07-2023 addressing the overriding effect of insolvency laws over the Electricity Act. Specifically, the case centered on Section 53[1] of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016, which
- [GUEST POST: Legal Vidhiya’s Mega Quiz Competition, 30 July 2023](https://theindianlawyer.in/guest-post-legal-vidhiyas-mega-quiz-competition-30-july-2023/) - ABOUT LEGAL VIDHIYA Legal Vidhiya is an exceptional platform designed exclusively for law students with a bold vision to cultivate a thriving community of legal professionals. We are dedicated to providing a unique space where students can intern, get published, and acquire indepth knowledge of the law. At Legal Vidhiya, we recognize the immense value
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION OF ACCUSED FOR ACCIDENTAL FIRING DESPITE LACK OF MOTIVE, BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-of-accused-for-accidental-firing-despite-lack-of-motive-based-on-circumstantial-evidence/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal in Criminal Appeal No. 2390 of 2010 passed a Judgment dated 17-07-2023 in the matter of Arvind Kumar Vs. State of NCT, Delhi made observations regarding the focal issue i.e. whether the Appellant's actions constituted intentional homicide or
- [SUPREME COURT DEPRECATES PRACTICE OF IMPOSING PRE-CONDITION DEPOSIT OF HIGH AMOUNTS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-deprecates-practice-of-imposing-pre-condition-deposit-of-high-amounts-for-anticipatory-bail/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, passed a judgment dated 04.07.2023 in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. The State of NCT of Delhi [SLP (Crl.) No. 2358 of 2023], wherein, the Bench observed that in recent times, a concerning trend has emerged where judicial
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THREE POLICEMEN IN MURDER CASE AS PROSECUTION FAILS TO PROVE GUILT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-order-of-acquittal-of-three-policemen-in-murder-case-as-prosecution-fails-to-prove-guilt/) - The division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Mishra, passed a judgment dated 17.07.2023 in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari and Ors. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.413 OF 2013) and upheld the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court (“High Court”). The High Court had dismissed an Application filed
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES ‘WATERFALL MECHANISM’ FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF A COMPANY UNDERGOING LIQUIDATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-waterfall-mechanism-for-distribution-of-assets-of-a-company-undergoing-liquidation/) - In a recent case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7976 of 2019, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 17-07-2023 and reiterated the ‘waterfall mechanism’ or order of priority
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS APPELLANTS-ACCUSED OF CHARGES OF VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-appellants-accused-of-charges-of-voluntarily-causing-hurt-in-the-absence-of-any-corroborative-evidence-against-the-accused/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 19.07.2023, in Boini Mahipal And Anr v. The State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2023, and held that the Appellants-Accused ought to be acquitted as the Prosecution did not clearly establish
- [AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INDIAN SITUATION AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING](https://theindianlawyer.in/affirmative-action-in-higher-education-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-indian-situation-and-the-u-s-supreme-court-ruling/) - This Article examines the issue of affirmative action in higher education, with particular attention paid to a comparative analysis between the Indian situation and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on college admissions (a non-profit organization by the name Student for Fair admissions field lawsuits against Harvard University and other institute to outlaw racial preferences).
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO REMAND A THIRTY EIGHT YEAR OLD TENANCY LITIGATION AND DECIDES THE MATTER FAVOURING THE LANDLORD](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-remand-a-thirty-eight-year-old-tenancy-litigation-and-decides-the-matter-favouring-the-landlord/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Assanuddin Amanullah in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4364 OF 2023 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.9434/2020] passed a Judgment dated 11-07-2023 in the matter RAVI KHANDELWAL (Appellant) vs. M/S. TALUKA STORES (Respondent) allowing an Appeal and directing the Respondent to deliver physical
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS APPELLANTS OWING TO SUSPICION REGARDING CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS STATEMENT AND FAILURE OF PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH OFFENCE AGAINST ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-appellants-owing-to-suspicion-regarding-credibility-of-witness-statement-and-failure-of-prosecution-to-establish-offence-against-accused/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 05.07.2023, in Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2010 and observed that the Appellants-Accused ought to be acquitted, as there was serious doubt regarding the credibility of
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO QUASH CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE PETITIONER OWING TO SUSPICION OF INVOLVEMENT IN CONSPIRACY WITH MAIN ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-quash-charges-framed-against-the-petitioner-owing-to-suspicion-of-involvement-in-conspiracy-with-main-accused/) - In a recent case of Supriya Jain vs State of Haryana and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1780 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 04-07-2023 and observed that at the initial stage of trial, the Court ought to be
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD AGAINST NON-SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-set-aside-foreign-arbitral-award-against-non-signatory-to-agreement/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath passed a Judgment dated 05-07-2023 in the matter of Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr. R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 / 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 and refused to set aside the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT RIGHT TO REPURCHASE IS NOT PERSONAL TO VENDOR UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN DOCUMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-right-to-repurchase-is-not-personal-to-vendor-unless-stated-otherwise-in-document/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Abhay S. Oka, passed a judgment dated 04.07.2023 in the matter of Indira Devi V. Veena Gupta & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2014], wherein, the Bench observed that the vendor does not have an exclusive claim on the right to repurchase in
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE APPELLANTS-ACCUSED OWING TO THE FAILURE OF PROSECUTION TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE MINOR WITNESS BEING TUTORED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-appellants-accused-owing-to-the-failure-of-prosecution-to-rule-out-the-possibility-of-the-minor-witness-being-tutored/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 05.07.2023, in Pradeep v. The State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 553 OF 2012 and observed that a minor child is competent to depose before a Court of law unless a possibility is established
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT DERIDES THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASTRA AND GOA](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-derides-the-conduct-of-members-of-the-bar-council-of-maharastra-and-goa/) - In a recent matter of LAKHAN PRALHAD MISAL vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Application/2065/2023 IN BA/913/2023), a single Judge Bench of Justice S.G. Mehare of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad rejected the Bail Application (Crime no. 0315/2020) of the Applicant on merits. The Hon’ble High Court observed both Counsels for the
- [LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/liability-of-insurance-companies-as-held-by-the-supreme-court/) - An insurance company is always ready and willing to repudiate a claim made by an insurer on some pretext or the other. In this article, we are discussing two Supreme Court cases that have discussed the liability of the insurance company. Most insurance companies while selling a policy give lot of false hope to the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS WINDING UP PROVISIONS UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 NOT APPLICABLE TO COMPANIES UNDERGOING LIQUIDATION UNDER INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE 2016](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-winding-up-provisions-under-companies-act-2013-not-applicable-to-companies-undergoing-liquidation-under-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna Passed a Judgement dated 02.05.2023 in the matter of Moser Baer Karamchari Union thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [Writ Petition (C) Nos. 421 of 2019, 777 of 2020 and 712
- [DELHI HIGH COURT IMPOSES COSTS ON DEFENDANTS FOR FRIVOLOUSLY FILING AMENDMENTS IN WRITTEN STATEMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION OF COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-imposes-costs-on-defendants-for-frivolously-filing-amendments-in-written-statements-without-permission-of-court/) - In a recent case, Hon’ble Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of the Delhi High Court, pronounced a Judgment dated 12.06.2023, in the matter of Yogesh Kumar vs Davender Kumar Relan And Ors [ I.A. No. 11118/2020 ], and held that the amendments made by the Defendants in their Written Statements were in violation of the statutory
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT THE WAITING PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS TO FILE SECOND MOTION APPLICATION FOR DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT CAN BE WAIVED OFF AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-the-waiting-period-of-6-months-to-file-second-motion-application-for-divorce-by-mutual-consent-can-be-waived-off-at-the-discretion-of-the-court/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J. K. Maheshwari passed a judgement dated 11.12.2021, in Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal in Civil Appeal No. 7650 of 2021 and observed that the Apex Court has the discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India (enforcement of decrees
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS VODAFONE OFFSHORE TRANSACTION NOT TAXABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-vodafone-offshore-transaction-not-taxable/) - A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) S. H. Kapadia, Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan in the matter of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs Union of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No.733 Of 2012, passed a Judgment dated 20-01-2012 and held that in the present
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES TO REJECT A PLAINT AT THE THRESHOLD AS THERE IS NO PROOF OF ILLEGALITY OF CONTENTIONS IN THE PLAINT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-reject-a-plaint-at-the-threshold-as-there-is-no-proof-of-illegality-of-contentions-in-the-plaint/) - In a recent case, Hon'ble Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court, pronounced a Judgment dated 01.06.2023, in the matter of Manju Vats and Others vs. Meena Pandey, CS (OS) 1281/2015, in which the Court held that the Plaint is not liable to be rejected at the threshold, as the Plaintiffs have proved that
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ACQUITS APPELLANTS AS PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-acquits-appellants-as-prosecution-failed-to-establish-the-circumstances-beyond-reasonable-doubt/) - In a recent case of Ramakant Murhari Aalat vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2016 and Hanmant @ Billa Vishwanath Aalat vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2016, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, comprising of Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOLDS THE INSURER AND NOT THE APPELLANT-DRIVER LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE DECEASED’ FAMILY](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-holds-the-insurer-and-not-the-appellant-driver-liable-to-pay-compensation-to-the-deceased-family/) - In a recent case of Vijay Arvind Pore v. Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh & Anr., First Appeal No. 1175 of 2010, Justice Shivkumar Dige of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay passed a Judgement dated 04-05-2023 and held that mere mention of the name of Bharat Gas on the body of the vehicle does not imply
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES FIR OWING TO UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF 60 YEARS IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS IN LAND OWNERSHIP DISPUTE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-fir-owing-to-unexplained-delay-of-60-years-in-initiating-proceedings-in-land-ownership-dispute/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed a judgment dated 10.05.2023 in the matter of Sri Gulam Mustafa Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2023], wherein, the Bench observed that there has been an unexplained delay of over 60
- [JOURNEY OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE 2016](https://theindianlawyer.in/journey-of-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/) - In 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was passed to address increasing bad debts and non-performing loans. The IBC was passed to favour the creditor during the resolution process and with a view to establishing a consolidated framework for insolvency resolution of corporations, partnership firms and individuals in a time-bound manner. IBC seeks to
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS TO CONSTITUTE OFFENCE OF ATROCITIES UNDER SC/ST ACT 1989](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-essential-ingredients-to-constitute-offence-of-atrocities-under-sc-st-act-1989/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipanka Datta and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat passed a judgment dated 19-05-2023 in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Vaisya vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [SLP (CRL) No. 1249/2023] and held that the High Court ought to have quashed the FIR
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS LANDLORD-OWNER ENTITLED TO GET BACK POSSESSION OF UNUSED TENANTED PREMISES FOR FURTHER BUSINESS USE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-landlord-owner-entitled-to-get-back-possession-of-unused-tenanted-premises-for-further-business-use/) - In a recent case, Hon'ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court pronounced a judgment dated 02.06.2023, in the matter of Bhaskar Refractories and Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ishwar Industries Ltd. RC. REV. 257/2022, and allowed the eviction petition in favor of the Respondent-Landlord on the ground that the latter is
- [BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALLOWS DECREE OF POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF WILL EXECUTED IN HER FAVOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/bombay-high-court-allows-decree-of-possession-of-suit-property-in-favor-of-the-respondent-on-the-basis-of-will-executed-in-her-favor/) - A Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur Bench comprising of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke passed a Judgment dated 07.06.2023 in a recent case of Smt. Sheela Assav Thomas and Others vs. Swarnalata, Second Appeal No. 235 of 2022 and observed that the Respondent, Smt. Swarnalata, established (i) the genuineness of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REITERATES THE TRIPLE TEST FOR GRANT OF BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-reiterates-the-triple-test-for-grant-of-bail/) - In a recent case of Preeti Chandra vs Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Appln. 3494/2022, CRL.M.A. 24331/2022, CRL.M. (Bail) 183/2023, Hon’ble Justice Jasmeet Singh passed a Judgment dated 14-06-2023 and made observations regarding the triple test to be satisfied before grant of bail. Facts i) The Applicant, Preeti Chandra, wife of Mr. Sanjay Chandra, the Director
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION CAN BE PASSED ONLY IF THE DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-judgment-on-admission-can-be-passed-only-if-the-defendants-admission-is-clear-and-unambiguous/) - In a recent case of Gurmeet Singh vs Manjeet Kaur and Another, C.R.P. 87 / 2022 and C.M. APPL. 29381/2022, 45118/2022, Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh passed a Judgment dated 02-06-2023 and observed that if the facts raised by one party are admitted by the opposite party and the Court is satisfied about the nature of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT PLACES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A SUIT SEEKING INJUNCTION IN CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING OUT MARITAL RELATIONSHIP IS TO BE FILED BEFORE CIVIL COURT OR FAMILY COURT, BEFORE A LARGER BENCH](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-places-the-issue-of-whether-a-suit-seeking-injunction-in-circumstances-arising-out-marital-relationship-is-to-be-filed-before-civil-court-or-family-court-before-a-larger-bench/) - The High Court of Delhi comprising of Justice Navin Chawla passed a Judgment dated 01.06.2023 in a recent case of Geeta Anand v Tanya Arjun & Anr, CS(OS) 601/2022 & I.As. 15957/2022, 20302/2022 and decided to place the issue i.e. whether in a suit filed for seeking injunction ‘in circumstances arising out of a matrimonial
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS AYURVEDIC DOCTORS NOT ENTITLED TO SAME PAY AND BENEFITS AS THAT OF MBBS DOCTORS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-ayurvedic-doctors-not-entitled-to-same-pay-and-benefits-as-that-of-mbbs-doctors/) - A Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, passed a judgement dated 26.04.2023 in the matter of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P. A. Bhatt & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 8553-8557 of 2014) and held that allopathy and ayurvedic doctors do not perform equal
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PLAINTIFF’S OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BASED ON POSSESSORY TITLE OBTAINED THROUGH PART PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-plaintiffs-ownership-of-property-based-on-possessory-title-obtained-through-part-performance-of-agreement-to-sell/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a judgment dated 02-06-2023 in the matter of Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi [Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012], which involved the dispute regarding the Respondent / Plaintiff, Yogendra Rathi’s ownership of a property in Delhi based on
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL COURT ORDER THAT SUMMONED THE APPELLANT AS CO-ACCUSED TO UNDERGO TRIAL WITH THE MAIN ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-trial-court-order-that-summoned-the-appellant-as-co-accused-to-undergo-trial-with-the-main-accused/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 02.06.2023 in Jitendra Nath Mishra v The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022 and observed that Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.PC), which envisages
- [SUPREME COURT ALLOWS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE TO PROBE INTO THE TAMIL NADU CASH-FOR-JOB-SCAM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-allows-enforcement-directorate-to-probe-into-the-tamil-nadu-cash-for-job-scam/) - In a recent case of Y. Balaji vs Karthik Desari and Anr. Crl. Appeal No.1671-1673 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian passed a Judgment dated 16-05-2023 and thereby, dismissed the challenges made by the Accused persons against the initiation of proceedings by
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS DEATH ROW ACCUSED IN A MINOR-RAPE AND MURDER CASE, DUE TO LAPSES IN POLICE INVESTIGATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-death-row-accused-in-a-minor-rape-and-murder-case-due-to-lapses-in-police-investigation/) - A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 19.05.2023 in ‘Prakash Nishad v State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 of 2023’, and acquitted the Accused-Appellant from the charges of murder and rape of a minor girl due to
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT TIME BARRED CLAIMS CANNOT BE ARBITRABLE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-time-barred-claims-cannot-be-arbitrable/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of CJI. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a judgment dated 18.05.2023 in the case of M/S. B&T AG Vs. Ministry of Defence Arbitration Petition (C) No. 13 of 2023, and made observations regarding the disputes between the parties regarding the Petition filed under Section
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT F.I.R. REGISTERED WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-f-i-r-registered-with-ulterior-motive-deserves-to-be-quashed/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 19.05.2023 in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 617 / 2023 and reiterated the essential ingredients of the offence of intentional insult under Section 504 of the
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE MEANING OF “AS IS WHERE IS BASIS” IN A PROPERTY SALE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-meaning-of-as-is-where-is-basis-in-a-property-sale/) - A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha passed a Judgment dated 19-05-2023 in the matter of K C Ninan vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 along with
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT SECURITY FURNISHED BY APPLICANTS CANNOT BELONG TO A THIRD PARTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-security-furnished-by-applicants-cannot-belong-to-a-third-party/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed a Judgment dated 18.05.2023 in the case of ‘Arti Dixit and Anr vs Sushil Kumar Mishra and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3858 of 2023’ and held that the security / surety furnished under Section 17 of the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE DEPOSITION OF A CHANCE WITNESS WHOSE PRESENCE AT THE PLACE OF INCIDENT IS DOUBTFUL, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-deposition-of-a-chance-witness-whose-presence-at-the-place-of-incident-is-doubtful-should-not-be-considered-as-evidence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra passed a Judgment dated 18.05.2023 in Ravi Mandal v State Of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2011 and Shabbir v State Of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2011 and held that the deposition of a
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS RESPONDENTS-THIRD PARTIES ENTITLED TO RAISE OBJECTIONS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF A DECREE IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-respondents-third-parties-entitled-to-raise-objections-against-enforcement-of-a-decree-in-execution-proceedings/) - In a recent case of Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr vs Shibu Mathew & Anr. etc, Civil Appeal Nos. 3758 – 3796 /2023 and other connected matters, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 16-05-2023 and observed that third parties may raise
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR LOSS SUSTAINED DUE TO A FIRE ACCIDENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-claimant-entitled-to-insurance-coverage-for-loss-sustained-due-to-a-fire-accident/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, passed a Judgment dated 16.05.2023, in the case of M/s Super Label Mfg. Co. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 2015 and allowed the Appellant's insurance claim against the loss suffered by the Appellant
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT SESSIONS COURT FAILED TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL, AS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ACCUSED WERE NOT PROPERLY ADDRESSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-sessions-court-failed-to-ensure-a-fair-trial-as-allegations-against-the-accused-were-not-properly-addressed/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgement dated 11/05/2023 in the case of Raj Kumar @ Suman V/s State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2023, and held that the Sessions Court failed to ensure a fair trial against the
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS HIGH COURT’S EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION TO HOLD TENANT LIABLE TO PAY RENT AS PER ORDERS OF LOWER COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-high-courts-exercise-of-discretionary-powers-under-article-227-of-constitution-to-hold-tenant-liable-to-pay-rent-as-per-orders-of-lower-court/) - A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 11.05.2023 in a recent case of K. Chinnammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs L. R. Eknath & Anr Civil Appeal No. 3626 of 2023 and observed that a High Court while exercising power and jurisdiction under
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS ARBITRATION ACT 1996 APPLICABLE TO ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS THAT COMMENCED PRIOR TO AND CONTINUED POST -2015 AMENDMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-arbitration-act-1996-applicable-to-arbitral-proceedings-that-commenced-prior-to-and-continued-post-2015-amendment/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 09.05.2023 in the case of ‘M/s. Shree Vishnu Constructions vs The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3461 of 2023’ and observed that when a notice invoking arbitration is
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ARBITRAL AWARD ON THE GROUND OF PATENT ILLEGALITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-circumstances-for-setting-aside-an-arbitral-award-on-the-ground-of-patent-illegality/) - In a recent case of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs State of Goa, Civil Appeal No. 3615 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 10-05-2023 and made observations regarding setting aside of an arbitration award on the ground of patent
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANT – SECURED CREDITOR ENTITLED TO RETAIN SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES PLEDGED BY CORPORATE DEBTOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellant-secured-creditor-entitled-to-retain-sale-proceeds-of-shares-pledged-by-corporate-debtor/) - In a recent case of M/S. Vistra ITCL (India) & Ors. Vs. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3606 of 2020, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna passed a Judgment dated 04-05-2023 and observed that the Appellant No. 1 - Secured Creditor
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT MAGISTRATES MUST EXERCISE JUDICIOIUS APPLICATION OF MIND UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CRPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-magistrates-must-exercise-judicioius-application-of-mind-under-section-1563-of-crpc/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna passed a Judgment dated 04.05.2023 in the case of ‘Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others, Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2021’ and upheld the High Court Order to remit the case to the Trial Court for examination
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT POLICE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO ORDER FOR FURTHER / RE-INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME, AS SUCH POWERS LIE WITH THE CONCERNED MAGISTRATE OR HIGH COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-police-is-not-empowered-to-order-for-further-re-investigation-of-a-crime-as-such-powers-lie-with-the-concerned-magistrate-or-high-court/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sajay Karol passed a Judgment dated 03.05.2023 in Peethambaran v State of Kerala & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2023 and held that the Police is not empowered to order for further investigation / reinvestigation of a crime, as such power lies with the concerned
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT LOWER COURTS ERRED IN HOLDING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY VOID, WITHOUT FRAMING ANY ISSUES THEREOF](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-lower-courts-erred-in-holding-transfer-of-property-void-without-framing-any-issues-thereof/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 04-05-2023 in the matter of Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs. Vs Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske & Ors. Civil Appeal No.930 of 2023 and observed that the High Court and the Trial Court erred
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THE BUYER ENTITLED TO REFUND OF DOUBLE THE ADVANCE AMOUNT, AS THE SELLER FAILED TO EXECUTE SALE DEED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-the-buyer-entitled-to-refund-of-double-the-advance-amount-as-the-seller-failed-to-execute-sale-deed-within-the-stipulated-time/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a judgment dated 28.04.2023 in T.D. Vivek Kumar & Anr. v. Ranbir Chaudhary in Civil Appeal Nos. 2514-2516 of 2023, and observed that in terms of the sale agreement executed between the buyer and the sellers, the buyer
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT HIGH COURT ERRED IN GOING BEYOND THE LIMITED SCOPE OF REVISION UNDER THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 BY WRONGLY HOLDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY OF FILING MIS-PLEADINGS IN COURT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-high-court-erred-in-going-beyond-the-limited-scope-of-revision-under-the-delhi-rent-control-act-1958-by-wrongly-holding-the-appellant-guilty-of-filing-mis-pleadings-in-court/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a judgment dated 25.04.2023 in Kusum Lata Sharma v. Arvind Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3111 of 2023, and held that in the present case, the High Court went far beyond the limited scope of revision in terms
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT AN UNSTAMPED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER LAW](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-an-unstamped-arbitration-agreement-is-not-enforceable-under-law/) - In a recent case of M/S. N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited Vs M/S. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No(s). 3802-3803 of 2020, a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS BUYER LIABLE TO PAY STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES ON THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY INCLUDING MOVABLE ASSETS ATTACHED THERETO](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-buyer-liable-to-pay-stamp-duty-and-registration-charges-on-the-value-of-the-entire-property-including-movable-assets-attached-thereto/) - In a recent case of The Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa & Anr. Vs M/S Dankuni Steels Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No(S). 3134-3135 of 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed a Judgment dated 26-04-2023 and observed that a transfer of property passes to
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A CHARGESHEET CANNOT BE FILED DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN INVESTIGATION, AS IT WOULD DEPRIVE THE ACCUSED OF HIS RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-chargesheet-cannot-be-filed-during-the-pendency-of-an-investigation-as-it-would-deprive-the-accused-of-his-right-to-default-bail/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 26.04.2023 in the case of ‘Ritu Chhabaria vs Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 60 of 2023’ and held that during the pendency of an investigation, an investigating officer cannot file
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A MARRIAGE CAN BE DISSOLVED ON THE GROUNDS OF IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN AND CRUELTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-circumstances-in-which-a-marriage-can-be-dissolved-on-the-grounds-of-irretrievable-breakdown-and-cruelty/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J. B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 26.04.2023 in Shri Rakesh Raman Versus Smt. Kavita, Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013 and made observations regarding the circumstances in which a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ and 'cruelty' under the Hindu
- [SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO HIGH COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS FOR FORMATION OF GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEES TO ADDRESS ISSUES FACED BY ADVOCATES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-issues-directions-to-high-courts-and-district-courts-for-formation-of-grievance-redressal-committees-to-address-issues-faced-by-advocates/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanulla passed a Judgment dated 20.04.2023 in ‘District Bar Association, Dehradun vs Ishwar Sandilya & Ors, MA No. 859 of 2020 in SLP (C) No. 5440 of 2020’ and issued directions to High Courts and District Courts for formation
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES CAN FILE CONSUMER COMPLAINTS IN RESPECT OF GOODS THAT ARE PURCHASED NOR FOR ANY RESALE / COMMERCIAL PURPOSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-commercial-enterprises-can-file-consumer-complaints-in-respect-of-goods-that-are-purchased-nor-for-any-resale-commercial-purpose/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar passed a judgment dated 13.04.2023 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5352-5353 / 2007, and held that a commercial enterprise can file consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act)
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PRIOR TO AWARDING DEATH SENTENCE, THE COURTS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH MATERIAL DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-prior-to-awarding-death-sentence-the-courts-must-be-provided-with-material-documents-in-order-to-balance-the-aggravating-and-mitigating-circumstances/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat passed a Judgment dated 21.04.2023 in ‘Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 2276 of 2022’ and held that prior to awarding death sentence to an accused, the Trial Court must be provided
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT, AS SHE WAS ALWAYS WILLING TO PAY SALE CONSIDERATION TO APPELLANTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-respondent-entitled-to-specific-performance-of-contract-as-she-was-always-willing-to-pay-sale-consideration-to-appellants/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 18.04.2023 in Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Versus Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4206 - 4207 of 2011 and observed that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to specific performance of contract, as
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PARTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE A REGISTERED INSTRUMENT EXECUTED WITH MUTUAL CONSENT OF PARTIES IN A WRIT PETITION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-parties-are-not-entitled-to-challenge-a-registered-instrument-executed-with-mutual-consent-of-parties-in-a-writ-petition/) - A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 19.04.2023 in a recent case of Gwalior Development Authority and another vs Bhanu Pratap Singh Civil Appeal No. 8549 of 2014 and observed that when an instrument is registered and a transaction is concluded
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS HIGH COURT ERRONEOUS IN ENTERTAINING WRIT PETITION TO DECIDE COMMERCIAL DISPUTES DESPITE EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-high-court-erroneous-in-entertaining-writ-petition-to-decide-commercial-disputes-despite-existence-of-alternate-remedies/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh passed a Judgment dated 17-04-2023 in the matter of M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. etc. Civil Appeal No. 002861 – 002862 / 2023 and observed that the High Court
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS RESPONDENT GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER IN PROSECUTION OF A COMMON OBJECT OF THE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-respondent-guilty-of-committing-murder-in-prosecution-of-a-common-object-of-the-unlawful-assembly/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Surendra Singh Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.4241 of 2019 and held the Respondent-Accused guilty of committing murder in prosecution of a common object of the unlawful assembly of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE OF CONTRACT IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-an-unregistered-agreement-to-sell-is-admissible-as-evidence-of-contract-in-a-suit-for-specific-performance/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari passed a Judgment dated 10.04.2023 in ‘R. Hemalatha v Kasthuri, Civil Appeal No. 2535 of 2023’ and held that an unregistered agreement to sell can be admitted as an evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance.
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PLAINTIFF’S OWNERSHIP TO SUIT PROPERTY, AS DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ESTABLISH TITLE BY WAY OF ADVERSE POSSESSION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-plaintiffs-ownership-to-suit-property-as-defendants-failed-to-establish-title-by-way-of-adverse-possession/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 11-04-2023 in Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust & Anr. vs Sh. Diwan Chand (Dead) through LRs & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6801 of 2010 and other connecting matters and held that
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL COURT ORDER OF FRAMING CHARGES AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTING OFFENCES WITHOUT AUTHORITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-trial-court-order-of-framing-charges-against-police-officers-allegedly-committing-offences-without-authority/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 12.04.2023 in a recent case of Dr. S.M. Mansoori (D) THR. L.R. vs Surekha Parmar & Ors Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2023 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL) No.4517 of 2019 and observed
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THAT BORROWERS MUST BE HEARD BEFORE BANKS CLASSIFY THEM AS FRAUDULENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-that-borrowers-must-be-heard-before-banks-classify-them-as-fraudulent/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli passed a Judgment in ‘State Bank of India and Others vs Rajesh Agarwal and Others, Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022’ and upheld that banks must give an opportunity to be heard to its borrowers before
- [TECH-GIANT ASKED TO REFUND MONEY FOR DEFECTIVE APPLE iMAC](https://theindianlawyer.in/tech-giant-asked-to-refund-money-for-defective-apple-imac/) - A perfect example of how the US tech-giant, Apple Inc. deceives its customers by selling defective products and then refusing to repair / replace / refund the same despite a warranty that makes the Company liable to repair / replace / refund. In 2021 during the Pandemic, when world had shifted from real to virtual,
- [SUPREME COURT ALLOWS EVICTION OF TENANT ON THE GROUND THAT HE CONTINUED TO DEPOSIT RENT IN THE COURT DESPITE LANDLORD’S WILLINGNESS TO RECEIVE RENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-allows-eviction-of-tenant-on-the-ground-that-he-continued-to-deposit-rent-in-the-court-despite-landlords-willingness-to-receive-rent/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 05.04.2023 in a recent case of Man Singh vs Shamim Ahmad (D) Thr. LRS. Civil Appeal No. 1874 of 2015 and observed that a tenant is permitted to deposit rent in the Civil Court
- [GUEST POST: TIPS & TRICKS FOR FINDING A QUALITY NOTARY NEAR YOU](https://theindianlawyer.in/tips-tricks-for-finding-a-quality-notary-near-you/) - A notary public may be quite useful regarding vital legal paperwork. Notaries are government-authorized individuals who can authenticate signatures and validate identities, making them an important aspect of many law matters. But how can you locate a reputable notary in your area? This post will provide some pointers on choosing a trustworthy notary public so
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT APPLICATION FOR INITIATION OF CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS CANNOT BE DISMISSED IF SOME INVOICES ARE TIME BARRED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-application-for-initiation-of-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cannot-be-dismissed-if-some-invoices-are-time-barred/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a judgment dated 27.03.2023 in M/s Next Education India Private Limited v M/s K12 Techno Services Private Limited in Civil Appeal No.1775 OF 2021, and observed that when a Petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT COMPLAINTS INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR HIGHLY DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACTS CANNOT BE DECIDED BY A CONSUMER FORUM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-complaints-involving-allegations-of-fraud-or-highly-disputed-questions-of-facts-cannot-be-decided-by-a-consumer-forum/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 27.03.2023 in The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Versus R. Chandramohan., Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009 and observed that the present case was mired with allegations of
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT AN ARBITRATOR CANNOT GO BEYOND THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT AND ALLOW ADDITIONAL CLAIMS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-an-arbitrator-cannot-go-beyond-the-terms-of-a-contract-and-allow-additional-claims/) - Recently, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed a Judgment dated 23-03-2023 in the matter of Union of India and Ors. vs. M/S. Bharat Enterprise Civil Appeal Nos. 3441-3442 of 2015 and observed that the Ld. Arbitrator cannot travel beyond the
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE APPRECIATING ORAL / OCULAR EVIDENCE OF EYE-WITNESSES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-factors-to-be-considered-while-appreciating-oral-ocular-evidence-of-eye-witnesses/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 29-03-2023 in the matter of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 and reiterated the factors to be considered, while appreciating the oral /
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PARTIES TO THE SUIT ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL SHARE AS COPARCENERS IN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-parties-to-the-suit-are-entitled-to-equal-share-as-coparceners-in-the-ancestral-properties/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 29.03.2023 in the case of ‘Prashanth Kumar Sahoo & Ors v Charulata Sahoo & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2913-2915 of 2018’ and held that as the Compromise Deed executed by the Parties was not
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT NCLT MAY ALLOW WITHDRAWAL OF INSOLVENCY APPLICATION AT A STAGE PRIOR TO CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-nclt-may-allow-withdrawal-of-insolvency-application-at-a-stage-prior-to-constitution-of-committee-of-creditors/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Vikram Nath passed a judgment dated 28.03.2023 in Abhishek Singh V Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. & Anr in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6452 Of 2021, and observed that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) may allow withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) applications
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED BEFORE REJECTING A PLAINT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-guiding-principles-to-be-followed-before-rejecting-a-plaint/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 29.03.2023 in Prem Kishore & Ors. Versus Brahm Prakash & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1948 of 2013 and reiterated the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANT-ACCUSED ENTITLED TO BAIL OWING TO SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN CRIMINAL TRIAL](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellant-accused-entitled-to-bail-owing-to-substantial-delay-in-criminal-trial/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 28.03.2023 in a recent case of Mohd. Muslim@Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.915 of 2023 and observed that the Appellant was entitled to bail as
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED THE APPELLANT-PUBLIC SERVANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE MONEY ACCEPTED WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquitted-the-appellant-public-servant-on-the-ground-that-the-money-accepted-was-not-in-the-nature-of-illegal-gratification/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 17.03.2023 in the case of Neeraj Dutta v State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009 and observed that the Prosecution failed to establish that the money accepted by
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT IN THE EVENT ATTESTING WITNESSES TO A DOCUMENT ARE NOT ALIVE, THE AUTHENTICITY OF SUCH DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVED BASED ON OTHER EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-in-the-event-attesting-witnesses-to-a-document-are-not-alive-the-authenticity-of-such-document-may-be-proved-based-on-other-evidence/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Hima Kohli passed a Judgment dated 14.03.2023 in the matter of Ashutosh Samanta (D) by Lrs. and others vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others Civil Appeal No. 7775 of 2021 and observed that in the event that attesting
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ARBITRATOR CAN AWARD PENDENTE LITE INTEREST IF THERE IS NO BAR UNDER CONTRACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-arbitrator-can-award-pendente-lite-interest-if-there-is-no-bar-under-contract/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice M.R. Shah, and Justice M.M. Sundresh passed a judgment dated 22.03.2023 in Indian Railway Construction Company Limited vs M/s National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited in Civil Appeal No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8460/2022, and held that unless there is a specific bar under the Contract, it is always
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT TRADEMARK RIGHTS OF CORPORATE DEBTOR CONTINUE WITH IT TILL IT TRANSFERS THE SAME](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-trademark-rights-of-corporate-debtor-continue-with-it-till-it-transfers-the-same/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 17.03.2023 in the case of SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund Versus Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Others in Civil Appeal No(S).1706 of 2023 and two others observed that a successful resolution
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS TENANT LIABLE FOR UNAUTHORISED ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO USE THE LEASED PREMISES IN FAVOR OF A THIRD PARTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-tenant-liable-for-unauthorised-assignment-of-right-to-use-the-leased-premises-in-favor-of-a-third-party/) - In a recent case of Yuvraj vs Janardan Subajirao Wide and other connected matters, Civil Appeal Nos. 2855­-2856 of 2011, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 21-03-2023 and held the Respondent-Tenant liable for unlawful and unauthorised assignment of right to carry on
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT NCLT HAS THE RIGHT TO PASS AN ORDER OF EVICTION FROM DISPUTED PROPERTY AFTER ADMISSION OF INSOLVENCY PETITION UNDER INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-nclt-has-the-right-to-pass-an-order-of-eviction-from-disputed-property-after-admission-of-insolvency-petition-under-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/) - In a recent case of Victory Iron Works Ltd. Vs Jitendra Lohia and Anr, Civil Appeal No 1743 of 2021 with Civil Appeal No 1782 of 2021, decided on 14.03.2023, a Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mittal passed a Judgment protecting the rights of the Corporate
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT MERE POSSESSION OF COSMETIC DRUGS IN SMALL QUANTITIES CANNOT WARRANT PROSECUTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-mere-possession-of-cosmetic-drugs-in-small-quantities-cannot-warrant-prosecution/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishna Murari recently passed a Judgment dated 15-03-2023 in the matter of S. Athilakshmi vs The State Represented by The Drugs Inspector, Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 9978 of 2022 quashing the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7315 of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE EYE-WITNESS CAN BE CREDIT WORTHY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-testimony-of-a-single-eye-witness-can-be-credit-worthy/) - Recently, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a judgment dated 16.03.2023 in Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda etc. vs State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal Nos.1109-1110 OF 2010, and held that the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses matter and even the testimony of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT LIABILITY OF A DIRECTOR IN A CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASE CONTINUES EVEN IF THE COMPANY GETS DISSOLVED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-liability-of-a-director-in-a-cheque-dishonour-case-continues-even-if-the-company-gets-dissolved/) - In a recent case of Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka Vs Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd, Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2023 and other connected matters, a Special Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 15-03-2023 and held that during the pendency of
- [BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ALLOWS FOREIGN LAWYERS RESTRICTED PRACTICE IN INDIA](https://theindianlawyer.in/bar-council-of-india-allows-foreign-lawyers-restricted-practice-in-india/) - The Indian Legal fraternity had opposed the advent or entry of foreign lawyers into India for several years. The matter of foreign lawyers / law firms practicing in India had gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2018 in the matter titled Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji and Ors AIR
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE GOLDEN PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE CONVICTING AN ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-golden-principles-of-law-of-extra-judicial-confession-to-be-considered-before-convicting-an-accused/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol has recently passed a Judgment dated 03-03-2023 in the matter of Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2010 and reiterated the golden principles of law of extra-judicial confession to be considered
- [DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS PETITIONER’S BAIL APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO SCOPE OF TAMPERING OF EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-allows-petitioners-bail-application-on-the-ground-that-there-was-little-or-no-scope-of-tampering-of-evidence/) - In a recent case of State Government of NCT Delhi vs Mukesh Kumar Singh, Bail Application 3116/2022, Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma of the High Court of Delhi, passed a Judgment dated 06.03.2023 and allowed the Bail Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (Special powers of
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE IMPORTANCE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD FOR EXERCISING POWER TO SUMMON ADDITIONAL ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-importance-of-material-evidence-on-record-for-exercising-power-to-summon-additional-accused/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 01.03.2023 in the case of Vikas Rathi vs State of U.P. and Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2023 and observed that the courts while exercising the power under Section 319 of the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY AN ACCUSED IN A TRIAL MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE CONVICTING HIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-written-statement-filed-by-an-accused-in-a-trial-must-be-taken-into-consideration-before-convicting-him/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 03.03.2023 in Premchand vs The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal no. 211 of 2023, and held that once a written statement is filed by an accused under Section 313 (5) of the Code of
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT APPELLATE COURT CANNOT REMAND SUIT FOR DE NOVO TRIAL WITHOUT RECORDING ANY EXPLANATION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-appellate-court-cannot-remand-suit-for-de-novo-trial-without-recording-any-explanation/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 27.03.2023 in SIRAJUDHEEN vs ZEENATH & ORS. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22557 OF 2019, and held that High Courts should not remand a matter for trial de novo without recording any explanation thereof. FACTS The
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR CONVICTION IN A KIDNAPPING CASE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-essential-ingredients-for-conviction-in-a-kidnapping-case/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed a Judgment dated 01.03.2023 in Ravi Dhingra Versus The State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.987 OF 2009 and observed that Section 364A (Kidnapping for ransom, etc) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has three stages
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO QUASH FIR REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF MERE “PROBABILITY” THAT RESPONDENTS POSSESSED DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-to-quash-fir-registered-on-the-basis-of-mere-probability-that-respondents-possessed-disproportionate-assets/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 01-03-2023 in the matter of The State of Chhattisgarh vs Aman Kumar Singh and Others, and Uchit Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 646 - 648 / 2023
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CAN SUB-DELEGATE HIS POWERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-general-power-of-attorney-holder-can-sub-delegate-his-powers/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 20.02.2023 in Mita India Pvt Ltd vs Mahendra Jain in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 OF 2019, and held that a General Power of Attorney holder can sub-delegate his powers to another person if there is a
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE POWER OF APEX COURT TO TRANSFER CHEQUE DISHONOUR CASES UNDER SECTION 406 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-power-of-apex-court-to-transfer-cheque-dishonour-cases-under-section-406-crpc/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 21.02.2023 in the case of Yogesh Upadhyay and Anr. vs. Atlanta Limited in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.526-527 of 2022 observed that the power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 (Power
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT THE EXECUTING COURT CANNOT GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DECREE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-the-executing-court-cannot-go-beyond-the-scope-of-the-decree/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat passed a Judgment dated 21.02.2023 in the case namely Sanwarlal Agrawal & Ors. Versus Ashok Kumar Kothari & Ors. in Civil Appeal No(S). 1312-1313 of 2023 and observed that the Executing Court while executing a decree cannot
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR DNA TESTING OF A MINOR IN A CUSTODY DISPUTE, AS IT WAS NOT IN THE ‘BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD’](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-permission-for-dna-testing-of-a-minor-in-a-custody-dispute-as-it-was-not-in-the-best-interest-of-the-child/) - In a recent case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Civil Appeal No. 001308 / 2023, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed a Judgment dated 20-02-2023 and refused permission to conduct DNA Testing of a minor child in a custody
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT CONVICTION U/S 498A IPC NOT SUSTAINABLE WHEN MARRIAGE IS FOUND TO BE NULL AND VOID](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-conviction-u-s-498a-ipc-not-sustainable-when-marriage-is-found-to-be-null-and-void/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court (Court) comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath passed a Judgment dated 17.02.2023 in Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule (D) By Lrs. And Anr. v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar (D) By Lrd. And Anr. in Criminal Appeal Nos.1404-1405 OF 2012, and has observed that section 498-A (Husband or relative
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT THE ACCUSED OWES AN EXPLANATION TO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY PROSECUTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-the-accused-owes-an-explanation-to-the-circumstantial-evidence-put-forth-by-prosecution/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 17.02.2023 in Ram Gopal S/O Mansharam Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9221 of 2018, and has observed that an accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the
- [SUPREME COURT RETERIATES THAT THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW OF EARLIER ORDER IS NOT TO SCRUTINIZE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION BUT TO CORRECT THE ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF IT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reteriates-that-the-purpose-of-review-of-earlier-order-is-not-to-scrutinize-the-correctness-of-the-decision-but-to-correct-the-error-apparent-on-the-face-of-it/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed a Judgment dated 15.02.2023 in the case of Pancham Lal Pandey Versus Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No.3329 of 2021 and observed that the purpose of review under the provisions of law
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT NON-EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN WITNESSES DOES NOT HAVE MATERIAL BEARING ON THE TRIAL, AS IT IS NOT THE QUANTITY BUT THE QUALITY OF WITNESSES THAT MATTERS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-non-examination-of-certain-witnesses-does-not-have-material-bearing-on-the-trial-as-it-is-not-the-quantity-but-the-quality-of-witnesses-that-matters/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath have recently passed a Judgment dated 15-02-2023 in the matter of Ajai Alias Ajju etc. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 598­600 of 2013, and other connected Appeals and observed that non-­examination of statements of witnesses by an Investigating Officer under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- [SUPREME COURT DECIDES UPON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION IN CASE OF DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-decides-upon-the-maintainability-of-writ-petition-in-case-of-disputes-arising-out-of-commercial-contracts/) - In a recent case of M/S. Gas Authority of India Limited vs M/S. Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 3504-3505 of 2010, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka passed a Judgment dated 08-02-2023 and made observations regarding maintainability of
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED WHILE DECIDING A CLAIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-the-terms-of-the-insurance-policy-are-to-be-strictly-construed-while-deciding-a-claim/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka passed a Judgment dated 08.02.2023 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Versus The Chief Electoral Officer & Ors. bearing Civil Appeal No.4769 Of 2022 and elucidated the principles, on which a claim under any
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT THE BUILDER OUGHT TO PROVIDE THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE EVEN WHEN THE POSSESSION IS ALREADY TAKEN BY THE OWNER](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-the-builder-ought-to-provide-the-completion-certificate-even-when-the-possession-is-already-taken-by-the-owner/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 09.02.2023 in the case of Debashis Sinha & Ors. Vs. M/S R.N.R. Enterprise & Ors. bearing Civil Appeal No.3343 Of 2020 and observed that the flat-owners, who are often forced by the circumstances
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD PRIOR TO THE INSTIUITION OF A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ATTACHMENT OR AN EXECUTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-a-property-which-has-been-sold-prior-to-the-instiuition-of-a-suit-for-specific-performance-cannot-be-the-subject-matter-of-an-attachment-or-an-execution/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M. R. SHAH and Justice CT Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 10.02.2023 in Gas Point Petroleum India Limited vs Rajendra Marothi in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2023, and held that provision regarding the deposit of 25% of the amount by the purchaser
- [Tax Structure under Budget 2023-2024](https://theindianlawyer.in/tax-structure-under-budget-2023-2024/) - The Finance Minister presented the Indian Budget 2023-2024 on 01.02.2023. There are seven salient areas that the Budget focuses on (Highlights of Indian Budget 2023-2024 are available at the link: https://theindianlawyer.in/blog/). This article focuses on the tax aspects under the Budget. Direct Tax proposals under the Budget 2023-2024 aims to maintain continuity and stability of
- [HIGHLIGHTS OF THE UNION BUDGET 2023-24](https://theindianlawyer.in/highlights-of-the-union-budget-2023-24/) - The Hon’ble Finance Minister, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman announced the Union Budget 2023-24 on 01-02-2023 amidst great hope. The Budget 2023-24 focuses on promoting economic stability by providing ample opportunities for citizens to invest in certain sectors with a special aim at supporting micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Interestingly, this Budget of 2023-24 aims for
- [SUPREME COURT REFUSES GRANT OF DECREE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, AS THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PURCHASE AGRICULUTRAL LAND](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-refuses-grant-of-decree-of-specific-performance-as-the-plaintiff-was-not-entitled-to-purchase-agriculutral-land/) - In a recent case of Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram & Ors. and Ajay Dabra Vs Sunder Singh & Anr., a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia passed a Judgment dated 31-01-2023 and observed that the Decree of Specific Performance cannot be granted, as
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS COMPLAINANT NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON PAY ORDER AMOUNT, AS THE RELIEF FOR INTEREST WAS NOT SOUGHT AT THE TIME OF FILING COMPLAINT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-complainant-not-entitled-to-interest-on-pay-order-amount-as-the-relief-for-interest-was-not-sought-at-the-time-of-filing-complaint/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice S Ravindra Bhat passed a Judgment dated 31.01.2023 in K. L. Suneja & Anr. vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga (D) Through Her LR & Anr. in Civil Appeal No(S). 4530 of 2019, wherein the Bench held that as the Complainant
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AS RESPONDENT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE FACT OF PENDENCY OF CIVIL SUIT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-as-respondent-failed-to-disclose-the-fact-of-pendency-of-civil-suit/) - A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 30.01.2023 in the case namely Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Versus State of West Bengal & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) 5866 of 2022 and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT IN ORDER TO CONIVCT A PERSON, IT IS THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE THAT MATTERS AND NOT THE QUANTITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-in-order-to-conivct-a-person-it-is-the-quality-of-evidence-that-matters-and-not-the-quantity/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta passed a Judgment dated 24.01.2023 in Munna Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2017 and other connected matters and observed that in case of murder, it is not necessary to insist
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANTS GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACT OF INJURY WOULD CAUSE DEATH](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellants-guilty-of-committing-murder-on-the-ground-that-they-had-knowledge-that-the-act-of-injury-would-cause-death/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Krishna Murari passed a Judgment dated 24.01.2023 in Prasad Pradhan & Anr. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2025 of 2022, and held the Appellants-Accused guilty of committing murder of the Deceased under Section 300 of the
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS APPELLANTS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM SHARE IN THEIR GRANDFATHER’S SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY, AS THEIR FATHER HAD RELEASED HIS SHARE BY VIRTUE OF A RELEASE DEED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-appellants-not-entitled-to-claim-share-in-their-grandfathers-self-acquired-property-as-their-father-had-released-his-share-by-virtue-of-a-release-deed/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed a Judgment dated 25-01-2023 in the matter of Elumalai @ Venkatesan & Anr Vs M. Kamala And Ors. & etc, Civil Appeal Nos. 521-522 of 2023 and held that the Appellants were not entitled to claim
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED AS THE PROSECUTION PROVED STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-the-conviction-of-the-accused-as-the-prosecution-proved-strong-circumstantial-evidence-against-the-accused/) - Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, passed a Judgment dated 19.01.2023 in the case titled John Anthonisamy @ John v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2017 and upheld the conviction of the Appellant-Accused (A-1) as he was convicted
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE STANDARDS OF PROOF IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES ARISING OUT OF DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-standards-of-proof-in-civil-and-criminal-cases-arising-out-of-dishonour-of-cheque/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavassi and Justice M.M. Sundresh passed a Judgment dated 18.01.2023 in Rajaram s/o Sriramulu Naidu (since deceased) through l.rs vs. Mr. Maruthachalam (since deceased) through l.rs., Criminal Appeal No.1978 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 10500 of 2013, and reiterated that the adjudication
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT DEFAULT BAIL GRANTED TO AN ACCUSED MAY BE CANCELLED, IF CHARGESHEET DISCLOSES COMMISSION OF NON-BAILABLE OFFENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-default-bail-granted-to-an-accused-may-be-cancelled-if-chargesheet-discloses-commission-of-non-bailable-offence/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice MR Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 16.01.2023 in The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation Versus T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2023 and observed that that when special reasons are made out
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ‘LAST SEEN WITH DECEASED’ CANNOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR CONVICTION](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-last-seen-with-deceased-cannot-be-the-sole-ground-for-conviction/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha passed a Judgment dated 17-01-2023 in the matter of Jabir and Others vs The State of Uttarakhand Criminal Appeal No 972 of 2013 and held that the accused persons cannot be convicted on the sole
- [DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVES THAT BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS ON TO THE ACCUSED IN CASE OF LACK OF EYE-WITNESSES WHEN THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED INSIDE THE PRIVACY OF A HOUSE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-observes-that-burden-of-proof-shifts-on-to-the-accused-in-case-of-lack-of-eye-witnesses-when-the-offence-is-committed-inside-the-privacy-of-a-house/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A.Bamba, passed a Judgment dated 10.01.2023 in the case titled as Ravinder Solanki v. State, Crl.A. 233/2019 and Smt Suman v. State, Crl.A. 100/2019 and held that when an offence takes place inside the privacy of home
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES TO GRANT PRE-PUBLICATION INJUNCTION AGAINST AIRING OF WEB SERIES CALLED ‘TRIAL BY FIRE’](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-grant-pre-publication-injunction-against-airing-of-web-series-called-trial-by-fire/) - In a recent case of Sushil Ansal vs Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. I.A. 507/2023 in CS(OS) 20/2023 bearing Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000205, Justice Yashwant Varma of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed a Judgment dated 12-01-2023 and held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a pre-publication injunction against airing of the Web Series
- [DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVES THAT TRADEMARK ACT, 1999 DOES NOT DEBAR ARBITRATION IF A DISPUTE EXISTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-observes-that-trademark-act-1999-does-not-debar-arbitration-if-a-dispute-exists/) - A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court presided by Justice Navin Chawla passed a Judgment dated 10.01.2023 in M/S Liberty Footwear Company Versus M/S Liberty International in CS(COMM) 715/2019 and observed that rights in personam are amenable to arbitration and disputes in rem are required to be adjudicated by the Courts and Public
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REITERATES THAT A SUIT FOR EVICTION PETITION CAN BE FILED BY CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-reiterates-that-a-suit-for-eviction-petition-can-be-filed-by-co-owners-of-the-property/) - Recently, a single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Datta passed a Judgment dated 11.01.2023 in DHARAM VEER GOEL vs RENU JAIN & ANR, in RC.REV. 118/2022, and held that that the co-owners of a property can file a suit for eviction of a tenant residing in the said property that belongs
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT SEBI IS EMPOWERED TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES PERTAINING TO SECURITIES MARKET](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-sebi-is-empowered-to-adjudicate-disputes-pertaining-to-securities-market/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice A.S. Bopanna passed a Judgment dated 04.01.2023 in the case titled IFB Agro Industries Limited v. Sicgil India limited and others, Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 2019 and reiterated that in respect of matters and disputes pertaining
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT THE DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE DISPOSSESSED FROM SUIT PROPERTY UNLESS THE PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHES BETTER TITLE OVER THE SAID PROPERTY](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-that-the-defendants-cannot-be-dispossessed-from-suit-property-unless-the-plaintiff-establishes-better-title-over-the-said-property/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari passed a Judgment dated 04-01-2023 in Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative Versus Prabha Ranjan Debbarma And Others Civil Appeal No. 878 of 2009 and observed that the Defendants cannot be dispossessed from the Suit Property unless
- [SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DEMONETISATION ACT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PASSED IN 2016](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-upholds-demonetisation-act-of-the-central-government-passed-in-2016/) - In a very interesting case, regarding powers of the Central Government, that was exercised during the demonetization on 08.11.2016 was decided by Bench of Five Judges on 02.01.2023 in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, Writ Petition (civil) no.906 of 2016 . The said case arose out of the writ petitions that were filed
- [SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES WHICH AMOUNT IS TO BE DEPOSITED BY BORROWER AS PRE-DEPOSIT U/S 18 SARFAESI ACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-clarifies-which-amount-is-to-be-deposited-by-borrower-as-pre-deposit-u-s-18-sarfaesi-act/) - Recently, a Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna passed a judgment dated 05.01.2023 in Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited vs Prudent ARC Limited, in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8969 OF 2022, and held that in case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets,
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT A MERE DISPUTE ON MONETARY DEMAND DOES NOT ATTRACT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 406 OF THE IPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-a-mere-dispute-on-monetary-demand-does-not-attract-criminal-prosecution-under-section-406-of-the-ipc/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari passed a Judgment dated 02.01.2023 in Deepak Gaba and Ors.Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2022 and observed that a dispute relating to demand of money does not attract the offence
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT NON-PRODUCTION OF MEANS OF PASSBOOK CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS FAILURE OF READINESS AND WILLINGNESS OF THE PARTY OF THE CONTRACT](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-non-production-of-means-of-passbook-can-not-be-considered-as-failure-of-readiness-and-willingness-of-the-party-of-the-contract/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed a Judgment dated 05.01.2023 in the case titled Basavaraj v. Padmavathi & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 8962-8963 of 2022 and held that the adverse inference can only be drawn when the plaintiff fails to produce the passbook when
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS APPELLANTS-ACCUSED GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER OF THE DECEASED, BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-appellants-accused-guilty-of-committing-murder-of-the-deceased-based-on-circumstantial-evidence/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal passed a Judgment dated 23.12.2022 in the cases titled Suraj @ Sonu V. State, Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2014 and Sonu Dahiya V. State the Govt of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 9
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT DEFENDANT’S USE OF PLAINTIFF’S REGISTERED TRADEMARK IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AMOUNTS TO INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-defendants-use-of-plaintiffs-registered-trademark-in-a-different-language-amounts-to-infringement-of-trademark/) - A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court presided by Justice Navin Chawla passed a Judgment dated 23.12.2022 in New Bharat Overseas versus Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors. bearing CS (Comm) 280/2020 and passed an Ad Interim Injunction Order restraining the Defendants from affixing the Registered Mark ‘TAJ MAHAL’ or any other mark
- [DELHI HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE TRIAL COURT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL MIND](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-sets-aside-trial-court-order-passed-without-proper-consideration-of-evidence-and-application-of-judicial-mind/) - Recently, Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court, passed a Judgment dated 23.12.2022 in the case titled as SHO, ACB v. Vijay Kataria, Crl.M.C. 2364/2011 and set aside the Order dated 06.07.2011 in CC No. 179/09, titled Vijay Kataria v. SHO Anti-Corruption Branch passed by the Learned Tis Hazari Courts, as the said Ld.
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS CO-PERPETRATORS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR OFFENCE OF MURDER JOINTLY INTENDED BY ALL THE APPELLANTS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-co-perpetrators-vicariously-liable-for-offence-of-murder-jointly-intended-by-all-the-appellants/) - In a recent case of Pankaj @Ishu vs State CRL.A. 1076/2019, Neutral Citation No.2022/DHC/005807 and two other connected matters, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal passed a Judgment dated 23-12-2022 and observed that based on the principle of joint liability, under Section
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR OF AN ACCUSED COMPANY NOT LIABLE FOR DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE OWING TO LACK OF SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE OFFENCE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-independent-director-of-an-accused-company-not-liable-for-dishonour-of-cheque-owing-to-lack-of-specific-involvement-in-the-offence/) - Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has passed a Judgment dated 19-12-2022 in the matter of Prakash Chand Vs State & Anr, Crl.M.C. 307/2020 and observed that for imposing liability on the director or officer-in-charge of an accused company for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (NI
- [DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN A "NON-BINDING TERM SHEET"](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-upholds-an-arbitration-clause-in-a-non-binding-term-sheet/) - Recently, a Single Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla passed a Judgment dated 19.12.2022 in Welspun One Logistics Parks Fund Vs. Mr. Mohit Verma & Ors., Arbitration Petition. No. 792/2022, and observed that the dispute between the Parties under Agreement titled as "Non-Binding Term Sheet", can be referred to arbitration,
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT IN A CASE WHERE CONVICTION HAS BEEN UPHELD, THE APPELLATE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REMIT A CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR DECIDING THE SENTENCE ALONE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-that-in-a-case-where-conviction-has-been-upheld-the-appellate-court-is-not-empowered-to-remit-a-case-to-the-trial-court-for-deciding-the-sentence-alone/) - A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court presided by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed a Judgment dated 19.12.2022 in Delhi Pollution Control Committee versus Raj Kumar Gupta arising out of CRL.REV.P. 111/2018 and observed that as per Section 386(b) (Power of the Appellate Court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the Appellate
- [DELHI HIGH COURT DISCHARGES THE PETITIONERS AS THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THEM IN THE FIR](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-discharges-the-petitioners-as-there-were-no-specific-allegations-made-against-them-in-the-fir/) - Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, passed a Judgment dated 19.12.2022 in the case titled as Suresh Chand Mishra & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. Crl.Rev.P.831/2018 and Crl.M.A. 32894/2018 and discharged the Petitioners under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (Punishment for criminal intimidation) read
- [DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES TO EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWERS, AS ACCUSED-PETITIONER ADOPTED DELAY TACTICS IN THE LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-exercise-its-inherent-powers-as-accused-petitioner-adopted-delay-tactics-in-the-lower-court-proceedings/) - Recently, Justice Anish Dayal of Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed a Judgment dated 19.12.2022 in the case titled Ajay Tyagi V. B9 Beverages, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6586 of 2022 and refused to allow the Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), on the grounds that the Accused-Petitioner adopted delay
- [SUPREME COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED, AS THE COMPLAINANT HAD ALREADY AVAILED CIVIL REMEDY AGAINST HIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-against-accused-as-the-complainant-had-already-availed-civil-remedy-against-him/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and J B Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 15.12.2022 in the case of R Nagender Yadav vs the State of Telangana, CRA 2290 of 2022 and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Accused in a cheating case after noticing that the Complainant had
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE ACCUSED'S PLEA ON APPLICABILITY OF THE SECTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE STAGE OF DISCHARGE.](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-that-the-accuseds-plea-on-applicability-of-the-section-has-to-be-considered-at-the-stage-of-discharge/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar passed a Judgment dated 12.12.2022 in the case of Chandi Puliya v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Criminal) No. 9897/2022 and held that the Trial Court ought to consider the plea of the Accused on the applicability of
- [SUPREME COURT REITERATES THE INGREDIENTS TO ESTABLISH AN OFFENCE OF ‘ORGANISED CRIME'](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-reiterates-the-ingredients-to-establish-an-offence-of-organised-crime/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed a Judgment dated 15-12-2022 in the matter of The State of Gujarat vs Sandip Omprakash Gupta, Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2022 and reiterated the essential ingredients to establish the offence of ‘organised crime’ under
- [SUPREME COURT HOLDS INSURANCE CONTRACT TO BE CONCLUDED BETWEEN PARTIES, AS PRE-ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS WERE COMPLIED AND PREMIUM WAS PAID](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-holds-insurance-contract-to-be-concluded-between-parties-as-pre-essential-requirements-were-complied-and-premium-was-paid/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice K.M. Joseph, passed a Judgment dated 15.12.2022 in the case titled Gokal Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. V. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. in SLP (C) No. 14140 of 2020 and observed that the Insurance Contract between the Parties was deemed to be
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT ACCUSED MUST BE INFORMED OF PROSECUTION CASE SO THAT HE CAN EFFECTIVELY DEFEND HIMSELF](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-accused-must-be-informed-of-prosecution-case-so-that-he-can-effectively-defend-himself/) - A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka passed a Judgment dated 14.12.2022 in the case of Kalicharan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2021 and observed that the requirement of Section 313[1](Power to examine the accused) of
- [SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT THE CIVIL COURTS CANNOT GRANT SUO MOTU RELIEFS NOT SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-observes-that-the-civil-courts-cannot-grant-suo-motu-reliefs-not-specifically-prayed-for/) - Recently, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed a Judgment dated 14.11.2022 in DESH RAJ AND ORS. VS. ROHTASH SINGH. in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 921 of 2022, and observed that unless a Plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of
- [DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THE PETITIONER NOT GUILTY AGAINST CHARGES FOR DEMAND OF BRIBE](https://theindianlawyer.in/delhi-high-court-holds-the-petitioner-not-guilty-against-charges-for-demand-of-bribe/) - Recently, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court passed a Judgment dated 08-12-2022 in the matter of Joginder Singh Malik vs CBI, Crl.A. 1302/2010 and acquitted the Petitioner-Accused on the ground that the Prosecution failed to prove the offence of demand of bribe / illegal gratification against the Accused beyond reasonable
- [FIVE JUDGE BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR COURTS TO FOLLOW FOR PROCEEDING AGAINST ADDITIONAL ACCUSED APPEARING TO BE GUILTY OF OFFENCES](https://theindianlawyer.in/five-judge-bench-of-the-supreme-court-lays-down-guidelines-for-courts-to-follow-for-proceeding-against-additional-accused-appearing-to-be-guilty-of-offences/) - Recently, a five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed a Judgment dated 05-12-2022 in the matter of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2019 and reiterated certain
- [SUPREME COURT ACQUITS THE APPELLANTS-ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF DISCREPANCY IN WITNESS TESTIMONIES](https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-acquits-the-appellants-accused-on-the-ground-of-discrepancy-in-witness-testimonies/) - A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, passed a Judgment dated 07.12.2022 in the case titled Ramcharan (Dead) & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2010 and Shyam vs State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of

## Pages

- [Home](https://theindianlawyer.in/) - The Indian Lawyer is your trusted source for the latest legal news, Supreme Court and High Court judgments, and simplified insights into Indian laws. We empower you with legal awareness through expert analysis, case summaries, and practical tips by Advocate Sushila Ram Varma. Stay informed about your rights, landmark rulings, and key updates in constitutional, criminal, and civil law.
- [Newsletter](https://theindianlawyer.in/newsletter/) - [newsletter]
- [Contact Us](https://theindianlawyer.in/contact-us/) - Delhi E-142, First Floor, Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi 110048, India Mumbai #602, 6th Floor, Oval House, British Hotel Lane, Opp. Commerce House, Fort, Mumbai 400023 India Hyderabad #303, Third Floor, The Down Town, Road No. 5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034 Telangana, India Chennai 1st Floor, Catholic Centre Annexe, No. 64, Armenian Street, Chennai- 600001,
- [Sectoral Overview](https://theindianlawyer.in/sectoral-overview/) - Aerospace Aviation Automotive Industry Bio Fuels Defence E-Commerce Food Processing Foreign Direct Investment Gems and Jewelry Health Care Infrastructure Indian Railways Oil and Gas Renewable Energy Steel Industry Telecom
- [Pay Now](https://theindianlawyer.in/areas-of-practice/pay-now/) - Please click on Pay now button to do the online payments
- [TIL Refund and Cancellation Policy](https://theindianlawyer.in/til-refund-and-cancellation-policy/) - The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services under no circumstance entertains the refund or cancellation of a successfully completed work/service/case. Once The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services, completes the work/service/case such transactions cannot be reversed or refunded. Cancellation Policy Customer/User satisfaction is our main priority. If we fail to provide services from our end then the
- [Transactional](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/transactional/) - The Team advises on inbound and outbound investments, collaboration and setting up business in India and overseas. We regularly advise on policies, regulations and compliance in relation to corporate and commercial matters. We advise and assist overseas clients to set up business operations in India. We also advise and guide our Indian Clients to deal
- [Gallery](https://theindianlawyer.in/gallery/)
- [Terms of Use](https://theindianlawyer.in/terms-of-use/) - This document is an electronic record in terms of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act, 2000”), the applicable rules thereunder and the provisions pertaining to electronic records in various statutes as amended thereof. This electronic record is generated by a computer system and does not require any physical or digital signatures. This document is published
- [About Co-Founder](https://theindianlawyer.in/about-co-founder/) - Warm Greetings from Team, The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services. We welcome you to our Website and look forward to render assistance and support to you for your business and corporate requirements. Our Team can render legal and financial advisory, business consultancy and taxation services. The Team consists of Professionals that are efficient, dedicated and
- [General Information](https://theindianlawyer.in/general-information/) - Courts Cause Lists Ministry of Law & Justice Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ministry of Commerce & Industry Indian Missions Abroad For NRI Realty News FDI Policy 2020-21
- [Privacy Policy](https://theindianlawyer.in/privacy-policy/) - The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services is committed to maintaining robust privacy protections for safeguarding the privacy rights and personal information of any person who accesses and uses the website (“User”) www.theindianlawyer.in (“Website”) that is owned and operated by The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services (“Law Firm”). This Privacy Policy applies to any person or
- [Disclaimer](https://theindianlawyer.in/disclaimer/) - The information provided in this website www.theindianlawyer.in (Website) is the sole and absolute property of The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services (the Law Firm). As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise in the public domain. The information contained in this Website, is for
- [Foreigner's Desk](https://theindianlawyer.in/foreigners-desk/) - Team, The Indian Lawyer specializes and has an expertise in giving complete hand holding assistance to foreign investors/NRI’s, companies, both foreign and Indian, individuals and firms interested in doing business in India. The Firm gives a complete guide on investments in India sector-wise as well as provides complete support to foreigners interested in manufacturing in
- [Our Services](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/) - Arbitration Arbitration has become the most efficient mode for speedy dispute… Read More Advisory We specialize in providing complete support and legal solutions… Read More Negotiation As legal advisers we can assist Clients with negotiations and finalization… Read More Mediation If parties are interested, they can sort differences by resolving disputes… Read More Services for
- [Legal Services For Any Sector](https://theindianlawyer.in/legal-services-for-any-sector/) - Expert Lawyers Team, The Indian Lawyer consists of motivated and dedicated lawyers that believe in using in-depth research and knowledge to achieve time bound, innovative and pragmatic solutions for their Clients. Timely Services Efficiency is a key word for the Team. The Team makes every effort to meet deadlines in the assignment and have a
- [Judgements](https://theindianlawyer.in/judgements/) - Supreme Court Delhi High Court Bombay High Court Telangana High Court Chennai High Court Other High Courts District Courts
- [Areas of Practice](https://theindianlawyer.in/areas-of-practice/) - Business Laws The Firm has a niche practice in business and corporate laws and provides a full range of services to Clients in the commercial world. The Team can provide complete services from advisory to incorporation of legal entity, drafting and vetting of miscellaneous contracts, compliances, registration of IPR, and when required, negotiations, litigations and
- [Allied Services](https://theindianlawyer.in/allied-services/) - Business Consultancy Expert guidance can be given by Senior Professionals regarding sector, incorporation, setting up of business, availability of human resources, due diligence of business partners, guide on place of business, suggestions on operations management, advice on marketing, etc. Financial Advisory Professional assistance in planning finances and investments, tax strategies, insurance, risk assessment, etc can
- [Teams](https://theindianlawyer.in/teams/)
- [Entry for Foreign Investors](https://theindianlawyer.in/entry-for-foreign-investors/) - STARTING OPERATIONS IN INDIA A foreign company planning to set up business operations in India has the following options As an indian company A foreign company can commence operations in India by incorporating a company under the Companies Act,1956 through Joint Ventures; or Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Foreign equity in such Indian companies can be up
- [Deeds & Documents](https://theindianlawyer.in/deeds-and-documents/) - Legal Documents are signed and executed by nearly everyone at some point or the other. Well drafted documents can save a lot of problems in the future. Hence it is always advisable to get documents from a lawyer. Documents provided by the Indian lawyer can be utilized by filling blank spaces or customised as per
- [About](https://theindianlawyer.in/about/) - Trusted Law Service for any Sector Expert Lawyer Fame is the most flexiable themes for any online shop Legal Service Fame is the most flexiable themes for any online shop Trusted Service Fame is the most flexiable themes for any online shop Let's Solve Together Accusantium doloremue laudantium, become totam rem aperiam aue goods inventore
- [Business Consultancy](https://theindianlawyer.in/business-consultancy/) - Our Business Consultancy Team can scrutinize and provide an analysis of the existing practices of a company and make recommendations for improvements in the areas of management, accountancy, law, human resources, marketing, finance and other associated areas. Following are some of the services which our Business Consultancy Team is proficient and capable of providing: Consulting,
- [Services for Non-Resident Indians](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/services-for-non-resident-indians/) - Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) interested in doing business or making investments in India can be guided and rendered specific advise pertaining to their areas of interest.
- [NRI Services](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/nri-services/) - We can advise our NRI Clients on various issues pertaining to their legal affairs in India. This could be matters relating to Indian Citizenship and Visa, Custody for property and assets, Ancestral Real Estate, Probate and Administration of Wills, etc.
- [Mediation](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/mediation/) - If parties are interested, they can sort differences by resolving disputes by sitting across a table. This would be a short, cost effective and final way of Resolution of Disputes. This can be done by Mediation and Out of Court Settlement. We advise our Clients to make an effort towards mediation as it helps to
- [Negotiation](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/negotiation/) - As legal advisers we can assist Clients with negotiations and finalization in forthcoming ventures to protect their interests. We have knowledge and experience in assisting Clients, both Indian and Foreign, to negotiate terms and conditions for business ventures in India.
- [Advisory](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/advisory/) - We specialize in providing complete support and legal solutions to businesses looking to enter and/or expand their operations in India. Setting up of a business involves strategic, legal, financial and business decisions. Our Clients are assured of legal advisory and compliance services for setting up their business in India. We can also assist you on
- [Arbitration](https://theindianlawyer.in/our-services/arbitration/) - Arbitration has become the most efficient mode for speedy dispute resolution in the international commercial world. It however requires skill and expertise. We can assist you with drafting of arbitration agreements, initiating arbitration by issuing notices and proceeding with arbitration. Our expertise lies in both International Commercial Arbitrations and Domestic Arbitrations.
- [Tax](https://theindianlawyer.in/tax/) - Taxation being a highly specialized area requires skills relating to tax planning, documentation and representations. Our team consists of highly trained and skilled charted accountants who have a plethora of experience in accounting, auditing, business process outsource, income tax, financial services, company law matters, foreign collaborations, import-export consultancy, sales tax matter, service-tax, STPI, transfer pricing
- [Education Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/practice-area/education-law/) - On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are snd beguled and demoralized among charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound and ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness
- [Insurance Defence](https://theindianlawyer.in/practice-area/insurance-defence/) - On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are snd beguled and demoralized among charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound and ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness
- [Real Estate Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/practice-area/real-estate-law/) - On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are snd beguled and demoralized among charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound and ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness
- [Family Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/practice-area/family-rights/) - On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are snd beguled and demoralized among charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound and ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness
- [Business Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/practice-area/business-law/) - On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are snd beguled and demoralized among charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound and ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through
- [Practice Area](https://theindianlawyer.in/practice-area/)

## Teams

- [Suchitra Upadhyay](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/suchitra-upadhyay/)
- [Suneel Kumar Kashipuria](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/suneel-kumar-kashipuria/)
- [Arjav Jain](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/arjav-jain/)
- [Kartik Khandekar](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/kartik-khandekar/)
- [Sakshi Raghuvanshi](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/sakshi-raghuvanshi/)
- [Harini Daliparthy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/harini-daliparthy/)
- [Mrs. Sushila Ram Varma](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/mrs-sushila-ram-varma/)
- [Girish Utangale](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/girish-utangale/)
- [C.A. Theagarajan](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/c-a-theagarajan/)
- [Lakshmi Vishwakarma](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/lakshmi-vishwakarma/)
- [Anurag Pandey](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/anurag-pandey/)
- [Satish Kumar](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/satish-kumar/)
- [Reena Pandey](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/reena-pandey/)
- [Vivek Sethi](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/vivek-sethi/)
- [Prabhakar Sripada](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/prabhakar-sripada/)
- [Gopal Kedia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/gopal-kedia/) - Head of G.K. Kedia & Co.
- [Mr. Mogili S.V.](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team/mr-mogili-s-v/)

## Entries

- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48638/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48637/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48636/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48635/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48634/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48633/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48632/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48631/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48630/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48629/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48606/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48605/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48604/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48603/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48602/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48601/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48600/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48599/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48598/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48597/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48596/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48595/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48594/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48588/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48587/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48586/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48585/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48584/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48583/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48582/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48581/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48580/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48579/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48578/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48577/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48576/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48575/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48574/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48573/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48552/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48551/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48550/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48549/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48548/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48547/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48546/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48545/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48544/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48543/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48542/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48541/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48540/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48539/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48538/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48537/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48536/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48535/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48534/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48533/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48532/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48531/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48530/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48529/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48528/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48527/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48526/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48525/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48493/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48492/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48491/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48490/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48489/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48488/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48487/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48486/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48485/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48484/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48483/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48482/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48481/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48480/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48479/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48478/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48477/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48476/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48475/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48474/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48473/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48472/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48471/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48470/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48469/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48468/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48467/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48466/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48465/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48464/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48463/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48459/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48458/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48457/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48456/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48455/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48454/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48453/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48451/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48450/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48449/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48448/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48445/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48444/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48443/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48442/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48441/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48440/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48439/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48438/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48437/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48436/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48434/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48433/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48432/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48431/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48430/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48429/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48428/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48427/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48426/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48425/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48424/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48423/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48422/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48421/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48419/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48420/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48418/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48417/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48416/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48415/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48414/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48413/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48412/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48411/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48410/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48409/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48408/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48407/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48406/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48405/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48404/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48403/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48402/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48401/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48400/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48399/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48398/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48397/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48396/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48395/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48394/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48393/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48392/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48391/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48359/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48357/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48358/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48356/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48355/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48354/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48353/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48352/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48351/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48350/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48349/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48348/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48347/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48346/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48345/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48344/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48343/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48342/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48341/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48340/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48339/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48338/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48337/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48336/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48335/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48334/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48333/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48332/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48331/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48330/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48329/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48328/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48327/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48326/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48325/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48324/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48323/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48322/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48321/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48320/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48319/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48318/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48317/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48316/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48315/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48314/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48291/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48290/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48289/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48288/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48287/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48286/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48285/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48284/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48283/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48282/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48281/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48280/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48279/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48278/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48277/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48276/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48275/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48274/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48273/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48272/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48271/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48270/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48269/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48268/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48266/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48265/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48264/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48263/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48262/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48261/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48260/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48259/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48258/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48257/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48256/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48255/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48254/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48253/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48252/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48251/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48250/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48249/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48248/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48247/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48246/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48245/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48244/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48243/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48242/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48241/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48240/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48239/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48236/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48235/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48234/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48233/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48232/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48209/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48208/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48207/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48206/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48205/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48204/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48203/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48202/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48201/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48200/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48199/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48198/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48197/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48196/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48195/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48194/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48193/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48192/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48191/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48190/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48189/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48188/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48187/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48186/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48185/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48184/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48183/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48182/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48181/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48180/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48179/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48178/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48177/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48176/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48175/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48174/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48173/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48172/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48171/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48170/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48169/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48168/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48167/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48166/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48165/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48164/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48163/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48162/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48160/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48161/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48159/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48158/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48157/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48156/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48155/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48154/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48153/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48152/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48151/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48150/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48149/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48148/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48147/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48146/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48127/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48125/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48124/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48123/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48122/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48121/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48120/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48119/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48118/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48117/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48116/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48115/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48114/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48113/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48112/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48111/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48110/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48109/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48108/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48107/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48106/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48105/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48104/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48103/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48101/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48100/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48099/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48098/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48097/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48096/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48095/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48094/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48093/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48092/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48091/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48090/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48089/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48088/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48087/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48086/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48085/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48084/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48083/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48082/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48081/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48080/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48079/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48078/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48077/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48076/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48055/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48052/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48051/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48050/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48049/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48048/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48047/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48046/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48045/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48044/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48043/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48042/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48041/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48040/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48039/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48038/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48037/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48036/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48035/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48034/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48033/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48032/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48031/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48030/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48029/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48028/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48027/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48026/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48025/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48024/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48023/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48022/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48021/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48020/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48019/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48018/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48017/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48016/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48015/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48014/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48013/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48012/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48011/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48010/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48009/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48008/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48007/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48006/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48005/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48004/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48003/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48002/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48001/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/48000/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47999/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47998/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47997/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47996/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47995/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47994/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47993/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47992/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47991/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47990/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47989/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47988/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47987/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47973/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47964/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47963/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47962/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47961/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47960/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47959/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47958/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47957/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47956/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47955/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47954/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47953/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47952/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47951/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47950/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47949/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47948/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47947/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47946/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47945/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47944/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47943/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47942/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47941/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47940/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47939/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47938/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47937/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47936/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47935/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47934/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47933/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47932/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47931/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47930/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47929/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47928/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47927/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47926/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47925/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47924/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47923/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47922/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47921/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47920/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47919/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47918/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47917/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47916/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47915/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47914/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47913/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47912/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47911/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47910/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47909/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47908/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47888/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47887/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47886/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47885/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47884/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47883/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47882/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47881/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47880/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47879/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47878/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47877/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47876/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47875/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47874/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47873/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47872/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47871/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47870/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47869/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47868/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47867/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47866/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47865/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47864/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47863/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47862/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47861/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47860/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47859/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47858/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47857/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47856/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47855/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47854/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47853/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47852/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47851/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47850/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47849/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47848/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47847/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47846/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47845/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47844/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47843/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47842/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47841/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47840/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47839/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47838/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47837/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47836/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47835/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47834/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47833/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47832/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47831/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47830/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47829/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47828/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47827/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47826/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47825/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47824/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47823/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47822/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47800/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47797/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47796/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47795/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47794/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47793/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47792/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47791/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47790/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47789/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47788/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47787/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47786/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47785/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47784/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47783/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47782/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47781/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47780/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47779/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47778/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47777/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47776/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47775/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47774/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47773/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47772/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47771/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47770/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47769/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47768/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47767/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47766/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47765/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47764/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47763/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47762/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47761/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47760/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47759/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47758/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47757/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47756/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47755/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47754/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47753/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47752/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47751/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47750/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47749/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47748/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47747/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47746/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47745/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47744/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47743/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47742/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47741/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47725/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47724/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47723/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47722/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47721/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47720/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47719/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47718/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47717/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47716/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47715/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47714/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47713/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47712/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47711/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47710/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47709/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47708/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47707/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47706/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47705/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47704/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47703/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47702/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47701/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47700/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47699/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47698/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47697/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47696/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47695/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47694/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47693/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47692/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47691/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47690/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47689/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47688/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47687/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47686/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47685/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47684/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47683/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47682/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47681/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47680/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47679/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47678/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47677/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47676/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47675/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47674/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47670/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47656/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47655/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47654/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47653/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47652/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47651/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47650/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47649/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47648/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47647/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47646/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47645/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47644/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47643/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47642/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47641/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47640/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47639/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47638/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47637/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47636/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47635/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47634/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47633/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47632/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47631/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47630/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47629/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47628/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47627/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47626/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47625/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47624/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47623/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47622/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47621/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47620/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47619/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47618/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47617/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47616/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47615/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47614/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47613/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47612/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47611/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47610/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47609/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47608/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47607/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47606/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47605/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47604/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47603/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47602/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47583/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47582/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47581/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47580/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47579/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47578/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47577/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47576/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47575/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47574/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47573/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47572/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47571/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47570/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47569/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47568/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47567/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47566/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47565/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47564/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47563/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47562/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47561/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47560/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47559/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47558/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47557/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47556/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47555/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47554/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47553/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47552/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47551/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47550/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47549/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47548/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47547/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47546/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47545/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47544/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47543/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47542/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47541/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47540/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47539/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47538/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47537/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47536/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47535/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47534/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47533/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47532/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47531/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47530/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47529/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47528/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47515/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47514/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47513/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47512/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47511/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47510/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47509/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47508/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47507/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47506/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47505/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47504/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47503/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47502/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47501/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47500/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47499/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47498/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47497/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47496/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47495/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47494/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47493/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47492/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47491/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47490/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47489/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47488/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47487/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47486/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47485/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47484/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47483/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47482/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47481/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47480/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47479/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47478/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47477/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47470/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47469/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47468/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47467/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47466/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47465/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47464/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47463/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47462/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47461/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47460/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47459/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47458/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47457/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47456/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47455/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47454/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47453/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47452/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47451/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47450/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47449/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47448/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47447/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47446/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47445/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47444/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47443/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47442/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47441/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47440/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47439/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47438/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47437/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47436/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47435/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47434/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47433/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47432/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47431/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47430/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47429/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47428/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47427/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47426/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47425/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47424/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47423/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47422/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47421/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47420/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47419/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47418/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47412/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47411/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47410/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47409/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47408/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47407/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47406/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47405/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47404/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47403/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47402/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47401/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47400/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47399/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47398/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47397/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47396/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47395/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47394/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47393/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47392/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47391/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47390/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47389/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47388/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47380/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47379/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47378/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47377/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47376/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47375/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47374/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47373/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47372/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47371/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47370/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47369/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47368/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47367/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47366/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47365/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47364/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47363/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47362/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47361/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47360/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47359/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47358/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47357/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47356/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47355/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47354/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47353/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47352/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47351/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47350/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47349/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47348/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47347/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47346/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47345/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47344/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47343/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47342/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47341/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47340/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47339/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47338/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47337/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47336/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47335/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47334/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47333/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47320/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47315/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47314/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47313/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47312/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47311/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47310/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47309/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47308/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47307/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47306/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47305/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47304/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47303/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47302/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47301/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47300/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47299/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47298/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47297/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47296/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47295/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47294/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47293/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47292/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47291/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47290/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47289/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47288/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47287/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47286/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47285/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47284/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47283/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47282/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47281/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47280/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47279/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47278/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47277/)
- [](https://theindianlawyer.in/vfb_entry/47276/)

## Testimonials

- [Alexander Bergmann](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/alexander-bergmann/) - My experiences with The Indian Lawyer, especially Ms. Sushila Ram, were outstanding through and through. These people know their craft and walk the extra mile for you. I also appreciated working with people that care for you on a personal level instead of just handling you as a “case”. You are in good hands with
- [Stuart Hay](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/stuart-hay/) - Bioguard is a UK Company that has entered the India market with our range of high-performance infection control products for hospitals and pharma. We have been using The Indian Lawyer for the last 3 years to help us with local legal compliance, commercial contractual issues and for employment contracts. We have found Sushila Ram Varma
- [Yume Herod](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/yume-herod/) - We worked with The Indian Lawyer on a software business related issue here in Los Angeles, CA. Sushila Ram and her staff were helpful in supporting our needs and providing guidance so we can navigate the best solution. We value their experience, expertise, and appreciate their client services. We highly recommend their services.
- [Salvatore Vitale](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/salvatore-vitale/) - At Vitale and Partners, we have obtained great results; thanks and pursuant to the co-operation with our Indian Partner, Mrs. Sushila Ram Varma, we have also been able to assist a top Indian manufacturer of trains with industrial interests and projects in Europe, and we are confident that our co-operation all over the two continents
- [Paul Garner](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/paul-garner/) - Like to thank Team, The Indian Lawyer for their quick and dedicated work for us upon our dealing with them, which was of an extremely high standard and we would recommend them and look forward to hiring them in future deals.
- [Ranga Rao](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/ranga-rao/) - It is my privilege to recommend Sushila Ram Varma from The Indian Lawyer, an excellent lawyer and a very thorough and competent professional who always had my best interests in mind.
- [Linda Taljaard](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/linda-taljaard/) - Hands down the best Law Firm out there". They stuck through a very difficult case for employment, death, organs of my husband, a foreigner, from South Africa. I had battled for years to get someone to understand my situation. Found Sushila Ram Varma in India. She was willing to take the case on. With her
- [Sudip Roy](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/sudip-roy/) - Thanks to your expertise and prowess, my cases not only saw the light of day, but were also won. Justice was served. Your dedication, your attention to detail and diligence made this all possible. You and your Team believed in me and my situation, and did not leave my side, but remained steadfast through it
- [Maxim Tyutikov](https://theindianlawyer.in/testimonials/maxim-tyutikov/) - Hiring Mrs Sushila Ram Varma and her Team as my Lawyer was the best decision I have ever made and I do not say this lightly. I have never seen anyone work as hard as Mrs Varma for her clients. The 8 years I have known her and her Firm, I can honestly say she

## Categories

- [Uncategorized](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/uncategorized/)
- [Advovacy](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/advovacy/)
- [Consultancy](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/consultancy/)
- [Family Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/family-rights/)
- [Insurance](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/insurance/)
- [Legal Support](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/legal-support/)
- [Real Estate Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/real-estate-law/)
- [Blog](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/blog/)
- [Team](https://theindianlawyer.in/category/team/)

## Tags

- [Corporate Debtor](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/corporate-debtor/)
- [Creditors](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/creditors/)
- [JUDGMENT](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judgment/)
- [NCLT](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/nclt/)
- [Supreme Court](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supreme-court/)
- [Transfer of winding-up proceedings to NCLT](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/transfer-of-winding-up-proceedings-to-nclt/)
- [Winding-up](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/winding-up/)
- [dismissal](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dismissal/)
- [law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/law/)
- [question of law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/question-of-law/)
- [recent judgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/recent-judgment/)
- [Supreme Court Judgement](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supreme-court-judgement/)
- [criminal law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminal-law/)
- [summoning of accused](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/summoning-of-accused/)
- [power of trial court](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/power-of-trial-court/)
- [the Indian lawyer blog](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/the-indian-lawyer-blog/)
- [The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/the-indian-lawyer-legal-tips/)
- [Advocate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/advocate/)
- [INSURER'S LIABILITY](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/insurers-liability/)
- [ACCIDENT CLAIM](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/accident-claim/)
- [SUPREME COURT RULES](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supreme-court-rules/)
- [Anticipatory Bail](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/anticipatory-bail/)
- [Economic Offences](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/economic-offences/)
- [#SupremeCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supremecourt/)
- [CERCRegulations](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/cercregulations/)
- [TariffRegulations](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/tariffregulations/)
- [TransformerReplacement](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/transformerreplacement/)
- [OMExpenditure](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/omexpenditure/)
- [CapitalWorks](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/capitalworks/)
- [ElectricityRegulation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/electricityregulation/)
- [IndiaEnergyLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indiaenergylaw/)
- [LegalUpdate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalupdate/)
- [UnauthorizedBuildings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/unauthorizedbuildings/)
- [IllegalConstruction](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/illegalconstruction/)
- [BuildingDemolition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/buildingdemolition/)
- [EvictionOrders](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/evictionorders/)
- [IndianLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianlaw/)
- [UrbanDevelopment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/urbandevelopment/)
- [SupremeCourtJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supremecourtjudgment/)
- [RealEstateLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/realestatelaw/)
- [DemolitionOrder](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/demolitionorder/)
- [EvictionProcess](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/evictionprocess/)
- [LandRegulations](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/landregulations/)
- [IndiaLegalNews](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indialegalnews/)
- [UrbanPlanning](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/urbanplanning/)
- [#InternationalLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/internationallaw/)
- [#Ceasefire](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ceasefire/)
- [#ExtraditionHafeez](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/extraditionhafeez/)
- [#Kashmir](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/kashmir/)
- [#LOC](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/loc/)
- [#LineofControl](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lineofcontrol/)
- [#BSf](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bsf/)
- [#IndianNavy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indiannavy/)
- [#IndianAirforce](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianairforce/)
- [#IndianBravehearts](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianbravehearts/)
- [#WorldWar](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/worldwar/)
- [#NuclearWeapons](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/nuclearweapons/)
- [#NuclearWar](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/nuclearwar/)
- [#AttackonTerrorInfra](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/attackonterrorinfra/)
- [#UNCharter](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/uncharter/)
- [#SelfDefence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/selfdefence/)
- [#NarendraModi](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/narendramodi/)
- [#PM](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/pm/)
- [#Misri](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/misri/)
- [#TerroristCamps](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/terroristcamps/)
- [#Terrorists](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/terrorists/)
- [#IndusWaterTreaty](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/induswatertreaty/)
- [#SushilaRamVarma](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sushilaramvarma/)
- [#JaiHind](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/jaihind/)
- [#OperationSindoor](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/operationsindoor/)
- [#IndianArmy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianarmy/)
- [#Islamicterror](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/islamicterror/)
- [#IndoPakConflict](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indopakconflict/)
- [SeniorAdvocate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/senioradvocate/)
- [#Desgination](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/desgination/)
- [#Bar](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bar/)
- [#Bench](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bench/)
- [AbetmentOfSuicide](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/abetmentofsuicide/)
- [CriminalLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminallaw/)
- [SuicidePrevention](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/suicideprevention/)
- [LegalNews](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalnews/)
- [ChargesheetQuashed](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/chargesheetquashed/)
- [LegalRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalrights/)
- [IndianJudiciary](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianjudiciary/)
- [LawAndOrder](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawandorder/)
- [LegalAwareness](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalawareness/)
- [CourtRulings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/courtrulings/)
- [JusticeInIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justiceinindia/)
- [Standard of Proof](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/standard-of-proof/)
- [Revenue Inspector](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/revenue-inspector/)
- [Corruption Case](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/corruption-case/)
- [Insufficient Evidence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/insufficient-evidence/)
- [Indian Judiciary](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indian-judiciary/)
- [Legal News](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-news/)
- [Court Judgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/court-judgment/)
- [Anti-Corruption Laws](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/anti-corruption-laws/)
- [Legal Update](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-update/)
- [Justice System](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justice-system/)
- [Indian Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indian-law/)
- [Court Ruling](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/court-ruling/)
- [Legal Awareness](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-awareness/)
- [Accountability](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/accountability/)
- [Disproportionate Assets](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/disproportionate-assets/)
- [Asset Concealment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/asset-concealment/)
- [Law and Order](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/law-and-order/)
- [Anti-Corruption](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/anti-corruption/)
- [Judicial Proceedings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicial-proceedings/)
- [Public Discourse](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/public-discourse/)
- [Legitimate Critique](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legitimate-critique/)
- [Sub Judice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sub-judice/)
- [Press Freedom](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/press-freedom/)
- [Freedom of Expression](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/freedom-of-expression/)
- [Court Proceedings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/court-proceedings/)
- [Media Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/media-rights/)
- [Public Discussion](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/public-discussion/)
- [Legal Commentary](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-commentary/)
- [Judicial Transparency](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicial-transparency/)
- [Section 498A](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/section-498a/)
- [Dowry Act](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dowry-act/)
- [Domestic Violence Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/domestic-violence-law/)
- [Dowry Prohibition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dowry-prohibition/)
- [Women Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/women-rights/)
- [theindianlawyer](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/theindianlawyer/)
- [#surrogacy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/surrogacy/)
- [#PartnershipAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/partnershipact/)
- [#BusinessLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/businesslaw/)
- [#CorporateLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/corporatelaw/)
- [#LawAndJustice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawandjustice/)
- [#LawUpdate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawupdate/)
- [#RetiredPartners](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/retiredpartners/)
- [#PartnershipLiability](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/partnershipliability/)
- [#StatutoryCompliance](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/statutorycompliance/)
- [#LegalObligations](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalobligations/)
- [#FirmLiability](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/firmliability/)
- [#RegisteredFirms](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/registeredfirms/)
- [#BusinessCompliance](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/businesscompliance/)
- [#KnowYourRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/knowyourrights/)
- [#LegalMatters](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalmatters/)
- [#LawInIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawinindia/)
- [#LegalAlert](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalalert/)
- [#LawStudents](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawstudents/)
- [#AdvocatesOfIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/advocatesofindia/)
- [#BankGuarantee](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bankguarantee/)
- [#CustomDuty](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/customduty/)
- [#TaxLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/taxlaw/)
- [#IndirectTax](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indirecttax/)
- [#TradeLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/tradelaw/)
- [#DutyPayment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dutypayment/)
- [#CustomsLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/customslaw/)
- [#ImportExport](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/importexport/)
- [#FinancialLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/financiallaw/)
- [#KabirTalwar](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/kabirtalwar/)
- [#HeroinSmuggling](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/heroinsmuggling/)
- [#DrugCase](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/drugcase/)
- [#BailDenied](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/baildenied/)
- [#NDPSAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ndpsact/)
- [#CourtVerdict](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/courtverdict/)
- [#CrimeNews](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/crimenews/)
- [#HighProfileCase](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/highprofilecase/)
- [#DrugTrafficking](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/drugtrafficking/)
- [#JusticeServed](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justiceserved/)
- [#POCSOAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/pocsoact/)
- [#ChildProtection](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childprotection/)
- [#ChildRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childrights/)
- [#ChildAbuse](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childabuse/)
- [#StopChildAbuse](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/stopchildabuse/)
- [#JusticeForChildren](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justiceforchildren/)
- [#CourtOrders](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/courtorders/)
- [#ChildSafety](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childsafety/)
- [#HumanRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/humanrights/)
- [#ProtectChildren](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/protectchildren/)
- [#EligibilityCriteria](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/eligibilitycriteria/)
- [#3YearPracticeRule](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/3yearpracticerule/)
- [#JudicialServices](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialservices/)
- [#BarCouncil](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/barcouncil/)
- [#LegalReforms](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalreforms/)
- [#LawProfession](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawprofession/)
- [#LegalEducation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legaleducation/)
- [#LawCareers](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawcareers/)
- [#JudiciaryReform](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judiciaryreform/)
- [#VictimWelfare](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/victimwelfare/)
- [#JuvenileJustice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/juvenilejustice/)
- [#AdolescentJustice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/adolescentjustice/)
- [#VictimSupport](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/victimsupport/)
- [#JudicialShift](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialshift/)
- [Partition Suit](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/partition-suit/)
- [Benami Property](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/benami-property/)
- [Benami Transactions](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/benami-transactions/)
- [Property Disputes](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/property-disputes/)
- [Civil Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/civil-law/)
- [Court Judgments](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/court-judgments/)
- [Supreme Court Judgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supreme-court-judgment/)
- [Partition Law India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/partition-law-india/)
- [Benami Allegations](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/benami-allegations/)
- [Property Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/property-law/)
- [Juvenile Justice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/juvenile-justice/)
- [Bail Granted](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bail-granted/)
- [Murder Case](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/murder-case/)
- [Juvenile Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/juvenile-law/)
- [Juvenility](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/juvenility/)
- [Juvenile Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/juvenile-rights/)
- [High Court Powers](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/high-court-powers/)
- [Sentence Enhancement](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sentence-enhancement/)
- [Criminal Appeal](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminal-appeal/)
- [Conviction Appeal](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/conviction-appeal/)
- [Sentencing Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sentencing-law/)
- [Appeal by Convict](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/appeal-by-convict/)
- [Justice System India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justice-system-india/)
- [Constitutional Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/constitutional-law/)
- [MMDR Act 1957](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mmdr-act-1957/)
- [State Government Powers](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/state-government-powers/)
- [Mining Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mining-law/)
- [Mineral Regulation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mineral-regulation/)
- [Mines and Minerals Act](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mines-and-minerals-act/)
- [Taxation Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/taxation-law/)
- [Natural Resources](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/natural-resources/)
- [Regulatory Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/regulatory-law/)
- [Waqf Amendment Act 2025](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/waqf-amendment-act-2025/)
- [Waqf Act India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/waqf-act-india/)
- [Waqf Properties](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/waqf-properties/)
- [Muslim Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/muslim-law/)
- [Indian Law Update](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indian-law-update/)
- [Waqf Board](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/waqf-board/)
- [Religious Property Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/religious-property-law/)
- [Supreme Court India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supreme-court-india/)
- [Legal Reforms](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-reforms/)
- [Minority Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/minority-rights/)
- [Property Law India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/property-law-india/)
- [Central Waqf Council](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/central-waqf-council/)
- [Islamic Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/islamic-law/)
- [Constitutional Rights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/constitutional-rights/)
- [Indian Muslims](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indian-muslims/)
- [Legal News India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-news-india/)
- [Digitization of Waqf](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/digitization-of-waqf/)
- [Law and Governance](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/law-and-governance/)
- [Waqf by User](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/waqf-by-user/)
- [Waqf Administration](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/waqf-administration/)
- [Domestic Violence Act](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/domestic-violence-act/)
- [Section 12 DV Act](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/section-12-dv-act/)
- [CrPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/crpc/)
- [BNSS](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bnss/)
- [Quashing of Complaints](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/quashing-of-complaints/)
- [Inherent Powers](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/inherent-powers/)
- [Criminal Law India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminal-law-india/)
- [Women's Rights Law](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/womens-rights-law/)
- [Legal Precedent](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-precedent/)
- [Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/protection-of-women-from-domestic-violence-act/)
- [Indian Law News](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indian-law-news/)
- [CrPC Section 482](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/crpc-section-482/)
- [BNSS 2023](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bnss-2023/)
- [Legal Rights India](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legal-rights-india/)
- [DV Complaint Quash](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dv-complaint-quash/)
- [#ChangeInLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/changeinlaw/)
- [#PowerPurchaseAgreement](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/powerpurchaseagreement/)
- [#ElectricityAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/electricityact/)
- [#EnergyLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/energylaw/)
- [#SupremeCourtIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supremecourtindia/)
- [#InfrastructureLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/infrastructurelaw/)
- [#EvacuationCharges](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/evacuationcharges/)
- [#PPAClause](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ppaclause/)
- [#RegulatoryLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/regulatorylaw/)
- [#LegalTips](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legaltips/)
- [#JudgmentExplained](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judgmentexplained/)
- [#IndianElectricityLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianelectricitylaw/)
- [#TrademarkLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/trademarklaw/)
- [#IntellectualProperty](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/intellectualproperty/)
- [#TrademarkDoctrine](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/trademarkdoctrine/)
- [#LegalAnalysis](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalanalysis/)
- [#IPLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/iplaw/)
- [#TrademarkInfringement](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/trademarkinfringement/)
- [#PassingOff](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/passingoff/)
- [#LawExplained](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawexplained/)
- [#LegalResearch](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalresearch/)
- [#LawStudentsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawstudentsindia/)
- [#BrandProtection](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/brandprotection/)
- [#TrademarkDisputes](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/trademarkdisputes/)
- [#CriticalLegalStudies](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criticallegalstudies/)
- [#MaritalConsent](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/maritalconsent/)
- [#UnnaturalOffences](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/unnaturaloffences/)
- [#CrueltyInMarriage](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/crueltyinmarriage/)
- [#IndianPenalCode](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianpenalcode/)
- [#ConsentInMarriage](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/consentinmarriage/)
- [#MaritalRapeDebate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/maritalrapedebate/)
- [#WomenRightsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/womenrightsindia/)
- [#CriminalLawIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminallawindia/)
- [#IPCSection377](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ipcsection377/)
- [#GenderJustice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/genderjustice/)
- [#NRIFees](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/nrifees/)
- [#CorpusFund](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/corpusfund/)
- [#MedicalEducation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/medicaleducation/)
- [#KeralaMedicalColleges](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/keralamedicalcolleges/)
- [#LegalJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legaljudgment/)
- [#EducationLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/educationlaw/)
- [#FeeRegulation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/feeregulation/)
- [#LegalUpdates](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalupdates/)
- [#IndianEducationSystem](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianeducationsystem/)
- [#SCVerdict](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/scverdict/)
- [#HigherEducationIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/highereducationindia/)
- [#JudicialReview](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialreview/)
- [#Article12](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/article12/)
- [#AirForceSchools](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/airforceschools/)
- [#FundamentalRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/fundamentalrights/)
- [#StateUnderConstitution](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/stateunderconstitution/)
- [#ConstitutionalLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/constitutionallaw/)
- [#JudicialRuling](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialruling/)
- [#IndianConstitution](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianconstitution/)
- [#MajorityJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/majorityjudgment/)
- [#CircumstantialEvidence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/circumstantialevidence/)
- [#CriminalTrials](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminaltrials/)
- [#PresumptionVsProof](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/presumptionvsproof/)
- [#IndianEvidenceAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianevidenceact/)
- [#JusticeSystem](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justicesystem/)
- [#DueProcess](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dueprocess/)
- [#BurdenOfProof](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/burdenofproof/)
- [#ConstitutionalRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/constitutionalrights/)
- [#PreventiveDetention](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/preventivedetention/)
- [#KAAPA](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/kaapa/)
- [#ConstitutionalLiberty](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/constitutionalliberty/)
- [#HumanRightsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/humanrightsindia/)
- [#Article21](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/article21/)
- [#RuleOfLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ruleoflaw/)
- [#NarcoTest](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/narcotest/)
- [#ForcedNarcoAnalysis](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/forcednarcoanalysis/)
- [#Article20(3)](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/article203/)
- [#RightAgainstSelfIncrimination](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/rightagainstselfincrimination/)
- [#RightToPrivacy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/righttoprivacy/)
- [#CriminalJustice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminaljustice/)
- [#SCJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/scjudgment/)
- [#UnionBank](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/unionbank/)
- [#ChargeSheet](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/chargesheet/)
- [#CVCAdvice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/cvcadvice/)
- [#CentralVigilanceCommission](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/centralvigilancecommission/)
- [#ServiceLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/servicelaw/)
- [#EmployeeRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/employeerights/)
- [#AdministrativeLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/administrativelaw/)
- [#GovernmentEmployees](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/governmentemployees/)
- [#BankingLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bankinglaw/)
- [#LandAllotment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/landallotment/)
- [#CharitableTrust](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/charitabletrust/)
- [#LandLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/landlaw/)
- [#PublicLand](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/publicland/)
- [#PropertyLawIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/propertylawindia/)
- [#TrustLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/trustlaw/)
- [#GovernmentLand](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/governmentland/)
- [#JusticeDelivered](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justicedelivered/)
- [#KeralaHighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/keralahighcourt/)
- [#TransgenderRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/transgenderrights/)
- [#ParentalRecognition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/parentalrecognition/)
- [#LGBTQRightsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lgbtqrightsindia/)
- [#BeyondBinary](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/beyondbinary/)
- [#IdentityLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/identitylaw/)
- [#InclusiveLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/inclusivelaw/)
- [#JudicialProgress](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialprogress/)
- [#advocatesushilaramvarma](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/advocatesushilaramvarma/)
- [#EnvironmentalConservation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/environmentalconservation/)
- [#SustainableDevelopment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sustainabledevelopment/)
- [#PublicWelfare](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/publicwelfare/)
- [#GreenVsGrowth](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/greenvsgrowth/)
- [#EnvironmentalLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/environmentallaw/)
- [#DevelopmentDebate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/developmentdebate/)
- [#EcologyAndLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ecologyandlaw/)
- [#EnvironmentalJustice](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/environmentaljustice/)
- [#ConstitutionalBalance](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/constitutionalbalance/)
- [#ClimateLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/climatelaw/)
- [#BombayHighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bombayhighcourt/)
- [#SeniorCitizensAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/seniorcitizensact/)
- [#ElderRightsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/elderrightsindia/)
- [#PropertyDispute](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/propertydispute/)
- [#MaintenanceAndWelfareAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/maintenanceandwelfareact/)
- [#HighCourtJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/highcourtjudgment/)
- [#LegalAwarenessIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalawarenessindia/)
- [#ParentPropertyRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/parentpropertyrights/)
- [#AdvocateSusheelaRamVerma](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/advocatesusheelaramverma/)
- [#LegalNewsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalnewsindia/)
- [#JudicialPrecedent](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialprecedent/)
- [#Abscondence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/abscondence/)
- [#PresumptionInLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/presumptioninlaw/)
- [#PostCrimeConduct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/postcrimeconduct/)
- [#HighCourtJudgments](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/highcourtjudgments/)
- [#EvidenceAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/evidenceact/)
- [#JudicialPerspective](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialperspective/)
- [#JudicialInterpretation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialinterpretation/)
- [#IndustrialDisputesAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/industrialdisputesact/)
- [#Section25O](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/section25o/)
- [#RightToClose](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/righttoclose/)
- [#DutyToJustify](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dutytojustify/)
- [#LabourLawIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/labourlawindia/)
- [#EmploymentLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/employmentlaw/)
- [#IndustrialRelations](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/industrialrelations/)
- [#LabourRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/labourrights/)
- [#DelhiHighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/delhihighcourt/)
- [#FIRQuashing](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/firquashing/)
- [#SexualExploitation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sexualexploitation/)
- [#MinorProtection](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/minorprotection/)
- [#JudicialAnalysis](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialanalysis/)
- [#ChildRightsIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childrightsindia/)
- [#UPGangstersAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/upgangstersact/)
- [#CommunalViolence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/communalviolence/)
- [#DraconianLaws](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/draconianlaws/)
- [#CalcuttaHighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/calcuttahighcourt/)
- [#ArbitrationLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/arbitrationlaw/)
- [#Section36(2)](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/section362/)
- [#FraudInArbitration](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/fraudinarbitration/)
- [#ArbitrationAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/arbitrationact/)
- [#MPHighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mphighcourt/)
- [#RapeCaseJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/rapecasejudgment/)
- [#BrutalVsBarbaric](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/brutalvsbarbaric/)
- [#CastleDoctrine](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/castledoctrine/)
- [#IndianConstitutionalLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/indianconstitutionallaw/)
- [#NocturnalSurveillance](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/nocturnalsurveillance/)
- [#HistorySheeters](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/historysheeters/)
- [#RBIPensionScheme](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/rbipensionscheme/)
- [#RBI2020](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/rbi2020/)
- [#PensionLawIndia](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/pensionlawindia/)
- [#ProspectiveImplementation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/prospectiveimplementation/)
- [#BloodEvidence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bloodevidence/)
- [#EvidenceLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/evidencelaw/)
- [#ForensicEvidence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/forensicevidence/)
- [#VehicleSeizure](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/vehicleseizure/)
- [#NDPSCases](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/ndpscases/)
- [#TenancyRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/tenancyrights/)
- [#SARFAESIAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/sarfaesiact/)
- [#Eviction](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/eviction/)
- [#PropertyLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/propertylaw/)
- [#TenancyProof](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/tenancyproof/)
- [#MortgageLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mortgagelaw/)
- [#LawAwareness](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawawareness/)
- [#ChildCustody](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childcustody/)
- [#FamilyLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/familylaw/)
- [#CustodyBattle](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/custodybattle/)
- [#ChildWelfare](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/childwelfare/)
- [#MentalHealth](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/mentalhealth/)
- [#ParentalRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/parentalrights/)
- [#WillsAndTestament](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/willsandtestament/)
- [#NaturalHeirs](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/naturalheirs/)
- [#InheritanceRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/inheritancerights/)
- [#WillDisputes](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/willdisputes/)
- [#LegalEntity](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalentity/)
- [#Section372](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/section372/)
- [#CompanyLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/companylaw/)
- [#VictimRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/victimrights/)
- [#PensionRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/pensionrights/)
- [#SocialSecurity](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/socialsecurity/)
- [#TribalRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/tribalrights/)
- [#WomensRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/womensrights/)
- [#SuccessionLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/successionlaw/)
- [#TribalWomen](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/tribalwomen/)
- [#JusticeForWomen](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justiceforwomen/)
- [#DoctrineOfMerger](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/doctrineofmerger/)
- [#FraudInJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/fraudinjudgment/)
- [#HighCourtOrder](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/highcourtorder/)
- [#FraudVitiatesEverything](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/fraudvitiateseverything/)
- [#AbatementOfAppeal](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/abatementofappeal/)
- [#LegalHeirs](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalheirs/)
- [#JointDecree](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/jointdecree/)
- [#CivilProcedure](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/civilprocedure/)
- [#AppealLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/appeallaw/)
- [#QuashingPetition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/quashingpetition/)
- [#CRPC482](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/crpc482/)
- [#SecondPetition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/secondpetition/)
- [#LegalProcedure](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalprocedure/)
- [#LimitationAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/limitationact/)
- [#MSMEDAct](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/msmedact/)
- [#DisputeResolution](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/disputeresolution/)
- [#ArbitrationProceedings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/arbitrationproceedings/)
- [#CommercialLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/commerciallaw/)
- [#CivilDisputes](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/civildisputes/)
- [#AbuseOfProcess](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/abuseofprocess/)
- [#CriminalProceedings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/criminalproceedings/)
- [#DNAEvidence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/dnaevidence/)
- [#DeathPenalty](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/deathpenalty/)
- [#DoubleMurderCase](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/doublemurdercase/)
- [#WrongfulConviction](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/wrongfulconviction/)
- [#MSME](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/msme/)
- [#LegalProtection](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/legalprotection/)
- [#DebtRecovery](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/debtrecovery/)
- [#JusticeDeferred](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justicedeferred/)
- [#JusticeDenied](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justicedenied/)
- [#HighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/highcourt/)
- [#SuspensionOfSentence](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/suspensionofsentence/)
- [#JusticeDelayedJusticeDenied](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justicedelayedjusticedenied/)
- [#UPSCPreparation](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/upscpreparation/)
- [#JudicialSystem](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialsystem/)
- [#AdvocateSusheelaRamVarma](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/advocatesusheelaramvarma/)
- [#SupremeCourtLawyer](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/supremecourtlawyer/)
- [#ExParteInjunction](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/exparteinjunction/)
- [#ProceduralLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/procedurallaw/)
- [#JudicialProcess](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialprocess/)
- [#ArbitrationAutonomy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/arbitrationautonomy/)
- [#AlternativeDisputeResolution](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/alternativedisputeresolution/)
- [#JudicialIntervention](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialintervention/)
- [#ContractLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/contractlaw/)
- [#ArbitrationAgreement](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/arbitrationagreement/)
- [#ArmyJAG](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/armyjag/)
- [#GenderEquality](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/genderequality/)
- [#MeritBasedRecruitment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/meritbasedrecruitment/)
- [#EqualityBeforeLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/equalitybeforelaw/)
- [#TelanganaHighCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/telanganahighcourt/)
- [#OccupancyCertificate](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/occupancycertificate/)
- [#ElectricityConnections](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/electricityconnections/)
- [#BuildingLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/buildinglaw/)
- [#LawUpdates](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/lawupdates/)
- [#AdversePossession](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/adversepossession/)
- [#CourtJudgment](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/courtjudgment/)
- [#CivilLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/civillaw/)
- [#StrictPleading](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/strictpleading/)
- [#JudicialRulings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/judicialrulings/)
- [#RecallPetition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/recallpetition/)
- [#ReviewPetition](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/reviewpetition/)
- [#ExportersRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/exportersrights/)
- [#MEIS](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/meis/)
- [#MerchandiseExports](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/merchandiseexports/)
- [#ExportIncentives](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/exportincentives/)
- [#ForeignTradePolicy](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/foreigntradepolicy/)
- [#JusticeForExporters](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justiceforexporters/)
- [#ProofBeyondReasonableDoubt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/proofbeyondreasonabledoubt/)
- [#JusticeForAll](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/justiceforall/)
- [#ContemptOfCourt](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/contemptofcourt/)
- [#ContemptJurisdiction](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/contemptjurisdiction/)
- [#OrderXXICPC](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/orderxxicpc/)
- [#Rule102](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/rule102/)
- [#CivilProcedureCode](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/civilprocedurecode/)
- [#BonaFidePurchaser](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/bonafidepurchaser/)
- [#PropertyRights](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/propertyrights/)
- [#CauseOfAction](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/causeofaction/)
- [#SuitProceedings](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/suitproceedings/)
- [#EntrepreneurLaw](https://theindianlawyer.in/tag/entrepreneurlaw/)

## Team Categories

- [Team](https://theindianlawyer.in/tc_team_cat/team/)