Keeping Pace with Legal Change
JPMorgan Chase is among the oldest, largest and most recognized financial companies in the world. As one of the world's premier investment banking and financial…
In the case of Dr. I.S. Tomar v. Invertis University, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that public officials cannot be punished without evident authority or evidence, while at the same time affirming institutional culpability for environmental damage caused by municipal mismanagement. This decision established liability under the National Green Tribunal Act.
In the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan, the Supreme Court supported the principle of res judicata, rejected claims of belated tenancy, and required possession delivery in accordance with a specified performance judgment. This decision strengthened the concept of finality in litigation and reduced the amount of procedural abuse that occurs in persistent property disputes.
London High Court denied Nirav Modi bail, citing abscond risk and a strong prima facie case in the ₹13,500 crore Punjab National Bank fraud involving fake letters of undertaking and asset diversion.
The chorus of “good riddance” to a Bengaluru firm’s Pune relocation raises constitutional questions, pitting Karnataka’s Kannada protection measures against individuals’ freedom of speech, movement, and personal choice of workplace.
The Supreme Court held that Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. is clarificatory, applying retrospectively to Goods and Services Tax Appeals Tribunal orders, and not merely prospectively, thereby validating earlier drawback claims.
Justice Oka has championed rights of slum dwellers, upheld environmental safeguards, protected free speech, ensured humanitarian care during COVID-19, and clarified federal powers, blending deep empathy with strict legal principles.
Section 141 of the National Insurance Act is the subject of this article, which provides an analysis of a Supreme Court case that clarifies directors’ vicarious liability. It places an emphasis on the necessity of precise allegations in complaints and draws attention to the delicate balance that must be maintained between preventing dishonor of checks and safeguarding individuals from unjustified punishment.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 239 CrPC magistrates must decide discharge solely on the charge-sheet and Section 173 documents, excluding any defence-sourced evidence to prevent premature mini-trials.
A dispute that had been going on for a long time regarding the dual taxation of DTH services was finally decided by the Supreme Court in 2025. In doing so, it affirmed the Center’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Union List and declared that the entertainment tax that the state imposes on broadcasting services is unlawful. In addition to invalidating overlapping and discriminatory taxation rules, the Court placed considerable emphasis on legislative competence, and it underlined the need of content and pith.
Entry 31 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution vests Parliament with exclusive authority over broadcasting, telecommunications, postal services, and allied communication forms. This provision ensures uniform regulation of Direct-to-Home satellite transmission across India, prohibiting states from enacting conflicting legislation in these sectors nationwide.
