Kerala Consumer Court Fines myG Future Over ₹15,000 for False Biriyani Pot Discount Claim
Kerala Consumer Court Fines myG Future ₹15,000 for False Biriyani Pot Discount Claim So, get this on June 27, 2025,…
Legal Maestros
Keeping Pace with Legal Change
Flash News
Nyaaya Hiring 2026: State Fellowship Manager, Legal Consultant and Programme Manager | Deadline Extended
Nyaaya has extended the application deadline for its current hiring opportunities for experienced professionals interested in working at the intersection of law, access to justice…
Editors Choice
View AllFeatured News
View All
Supreme Court Clarifies Entry Tax Liability on Liquor Manufacturers: Who is the “Dealer” for Purposes of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act?
In M/S United Spirits Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that liquor manufacturers are responsible for payment of entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, even if they supply goods to government warehouses. The Court held that manufacturers “cause entry” of goods for sale and maintain control until the goods arrive at retailers’ hands. Government warehouses are only intermediaries and not dealers. The ruling makes clear dealer liability in compliant commodity chains and thwarts abuse of procedural arrangements to avoid tax.
SCReiterates Pleader’s Mandatory Obligation to Report Client’s Death: Order XXII Rule 10A CPC accorded Priority over Formalities
In Binod Pathak & Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary & Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the pleaders under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC to report the death of a client. It held that defaults of procedure should never defeat substantive justice, particularly such defaults resulting from mala fide silence. Revoking the order of the Patna High Court, the Court held that no one shall profit from their own iniquity, upholding fairness and moral legal practices.
In a Landmark Review, Supreme Court Prioritizes Child’s Emotional Wellbeing Over Custodial Proceduralism
The Supreme Court reversed its previous order in favour of granting custody to the father on 15 July 2025 and reinstated permanent custody with the mother on grounds of severe psychological damage to the child. The Court highlighted that custody disputes have to be resolved with a view to a child’s emotional stability and not legal conclusiveness.
Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Power to Levy Interest from Adjudication
In a historic judgment on 15 July 2025, the Supreme Court made clear that SEBI is able to charge interest on fines from the date of elapse of the payment period in the order of adjudication itself. The Court rejected the necessity of a separate demand notice and held that interest liability arises automatically upon default, based on substantive law and the doctrine of legislation by reference.
Dr BC Roy By Justice Katju
1st July is celebrated every year as Doctors Day. It is the birthday of Dr BC Roy ( 1882-1962 ),…
Former CJI Chandrachud: One Nation One Election Bill Not Unconstitutional, Needs Refinement
Introduction Alright, here’s the deal: India’s democracy? It’s basically this wild, patchwork quilt messy, colorful, and stitched together from a…
SEBI Gets Supreme Court Backing as Justices R. Mahadevan and J.B. Pardiwala Confirm Authority to Impose Interest Without Fresh Demand Notice
Recently, a major legal issue that was raised in the Supreme Court of India related to the time point when…
Supreme Court Bench Led by Justices V. Nath and P. B. Varale Gives Custody Back to Mother: Child’s Mental Health Takes Priority Over Previous Order
The modern thwack of the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh…