Flash News
Senior Counsel – VP Position Available | Deutsche Bank Mumbai, Maharashtra
Job Opening: Law – LASS – Senior at Ernst & Young (EY), Bengaluru
Job Opening: General Manager – Legal at Godrej Group, Bengaluru
Legal Counsel – Office of Legal Obligations | JPMorgan Chase | Full-time
Why I did not sing a certain song in Georgia

Grid Posts

View All
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Justices P. S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra Partly Allow Appeals in Family Dispute Culpable Homicide Case

byLegal Maestros
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Modifies Conviction in Culpable Homicide Case

byLegal Maestros
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Quashes Criminal Case Against Doctor

byLegal Maestros
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment by Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N. V. Anjaria Upholds Cancellation of Piaggio’s Industrial Plot

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Operation Sindoor Trademark Rush: Navigating Legal Provisions and Ethical Complexities in India’s IP Law

The Operation Sindoor trademark rush, following India’s 2025 military strike, saw multiple entities, including Reliance Industries, file applications to trademark the term under Class 41, sparking legal and ethical debates. Governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Emblems and Names Act, 1950, such filings face scrutiny under Section 9 for potentially exploiting national sentiment. A Public Interest Litigation challenges these applications, highlighting ethical concerns over commercializing a term symbolizing military valor. The case underscores the tension between intellectual property rights and public interest, urging stricter guidelines to prevent misuse of nationally significant terms.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Liability of Retired Partners Under Negotiable Instruments Act and Partnership Act: A Legal Analysis of Shivappa Reddy vs. S. Srinivasan (2025 INSC 729)

The Supreme Court in Shivappa Reddy vs. S. Srinivasan (2025 INSC 729) clarified the liability of retired partners under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The court held that a retired partner is not liable for partnership debts post-retirement unless public notice of retirement is issued per Section 32(3) of the Partnership Act. Under Section 138 of the NI Act, liability for cheque dishonour requires active involvement at the time of issuance. The ruling emphasizes statutory compliance and notice requirements to absolve retiring partners from liability.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Toxic Work Culture Blamed for Ola Engineer’s Death: Examining the Gaps in India’s Labour Laws Protecting Tech Workers

In May 2025, a young Ola Krutrim engineer in Bengaluru took his life amid crushing workloads and a toxic environment. His death exposed how India’s tech sector often sidesteps labor laws, leaving skilled professionals without proper safeguards. Urgent reforms in legal protections and company culture are needed to prevent tragedies.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Section 27 of the Customs Act and the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment Examined in Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Union of India

In Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that encashment of a bank guarantee is not equivalent to payment of customs duty under Section 27. Therefore, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply, and the government must refund amounts secured through such guarantees without demanding compliance with refund procedures.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Supreme Court Streamlines Multi-State FIRs: Ravinder Singh Sidhu Case and Principles on FIR Clubbing

The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Ravinder Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab (2025 INSC 727) establishes principles for clubbing multi-state FIRs, enhancing judicial efficiency. Addressing multiple FIRs filed across states for related offenses, the Court emphasized consolidating cases to prevent procedural abuse and ensure fairness, as seen in Sidhu’s case involving Punjab and Haryana. The verdict aligns with Article 21’s right to a fair trial, streamlining investigations while safeguarding defendants’ rights. It sets a precedent for handling cross-jurisdictional disputes, reducing redundancy.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Equal Pensions for Equal Service: Supreme Court’s Clarification on High Court Judges’ Post-Retirement Benefits

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling on May 19, 2025, mandated equal pensions for all retired High Court judges under the ‘One Rank One Pension’ principle, regardless of their entry route or tenure. The decision eliminates disparities between permanent and additional judges, ensuring a uniform pension of ₹15 lakh annually for Chief Justices and ₹13.5 lakh for other judges. It upholds Article 14’s equality clause, reinforcing judicial independence by standardizing post-retirement benefits. The ruling also extends family pension rights, addressing long-standing inequities.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Citizenship Denied: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Rofiqul Hoque and the Burden of Proof under the Foreigners Act

The Supreme Court’s verdict on Rofiqul Hoque’s citizenship case clarifies the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Court ruled that authorities cannot arbitrarily label individuals as foreigners without primary evidence, emphasizing natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem. Hoque, initially declared a foreigner by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal due to documentary discrepancies, had his citizenship restored. The decision critiques random suspicions and reinforces procedural fairness, impacting citizenship disputes amid Assam’s NRC exercise. It alleviates concerns over minor errors in documentation.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Flood Damage Under Consumer Law: A Supreme Court Clarification

This paper examines a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling clarifying consumer rights in flood damage cases under consumer law. The decision addresses liability for property damage caused by state actions, emphasizing the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and state law remedies. It enables affected consumers, like Texas landowners, to seek compensation for flood-related losses due to government infrastructure projects. The ruling highlights the balance between public projects and private property rights, offering a framework for future litigation. It underscores the importance of clear legal pathways for consumers seeking redress.

byLegal Maestros
Current Legal Update

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Acid Attack Case, Reduces Sentence of Aged Accused on Health Grounds

The case started with a horrific acid attack on a Mathural, Uttar Pradesh, woman on June 8, 2014. Three accused—Hakim (accused number one), Umesh (accused number two), and Gyani (accused number three)—intercepted the victim returning home from a temple visit near a railway crossing. Driven by retribution over an earlier grievance, the three carried out a premeditated attack. Umesh threw acid on the victim while Hakim and Gyani held her, resulting in extreme damage including 90% loss of eyesight in one eye and permanent facial disfiguredness.

byLegal Maestros