Supreme Court clarifies penalty provisions under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act in search cases: K. Krishnamurthy vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2025)

/ Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 132, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 142(1), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 271AAA, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Manmohan J.

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 208 Judges: J.B. Pardiwala and Manmohan J. When can tax authorities impose penalties following a search operation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court clarified the scope and […]

Supreme Court clarifies penalty provisions under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act in search cases: K. Krishnamurthy vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Alimony Rights in Void Marriages: Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur (2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Augustine George Masih, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 25, Judges

Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 197 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J. Can a person whose marriage is legally declared void still claim alimony from their former spouse? This crucial question was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukhdev

Supreme Court Clarifies Alimony Rights in Void Marriages: Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act Charges in Property Dispute Case: Jay Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with Section 2, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with Section 3

Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 198 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Can allegations of cheating and property disputes lead to charges under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the case of Jay Kishan and Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act Charges in Property Dispute Case: Jay Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 77, Dipankar Datta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Manmohan, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 with Section 4, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 with Section 5

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 12th February, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 201 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J. Was the selection process for the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) flawed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India & Ors., examining

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking clarification on statements made during Habeas Corpus petition: Dhanlaxmi vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 196 (12 February 2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Habeas Corpus, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 196 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah When can a court refuse to entertain repeated requests for clarification on statements made during court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking clarification on statements made during Habeas Corpus petition: Dhanlaxmi vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 196 (12 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to lack of evidence: Siba Nial vs. State of Odisha (2025)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J. Can circumstantial evidence alone be sufficient to convict someone of murder when key eyewitness testimonies are inconsistent and forensic evidence is ambiguous? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Siba Nial @ Trilochan v.

Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to lack of evidence: Siba Nial vs. State of Odisha (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the nature of relationship between State Governments and lottery distributors for Service Tax applicability: Union of India vs. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) INSC 181 (11 February 2025)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 246, Entry 62, List II of the Seventh Schedule, Entry 97, List I of the Seventh Schedule, Finance Act, 1994, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 66D, Judges, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 181 Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. The Supreme Court addressed the critical question of whether lottery distributors act as agents of the state government or as independent entities. This determination is crucial for deciding the applicability of service tax under the Finance

Supreme Court settles the nature of relationship between State Governments and lottery distributors for Service Tax applicability: Union of India vs. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) INSC 181 (11 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Accident Case Involving Foreign Income: Shyam Prasad Nagalla vs. APSRTC (2025)

/ Calculation of Compensation, Compensation, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Exchange Rate, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Multiplier, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Sanjay Karol, Supreme Court Judgments

Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 193 Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. When an accident occurs involving a victim earning in a foreign currency, how should compensation be calculated? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the exchange rate and the

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Accident Case Involving Foreign Income: Shyam Prasad Nagalla vs. APSRTC (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies dependency for compensation in motor accident claims: Seema Rani vs. Oriental Insurance (2025)

/ Judges, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Sanjay Karol

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 192 Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Can major sons and married daughters be considered dependents for compensation in motor accident claims? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning a motor accident claim. The court clarified

Supreme Court clarifies dependency for compensation in motor accident claims: Seema Rani vs. Oriental Insurance (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment criteria: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) INSC 184

/ Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dipankar Datta, Judges, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 11th February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 184 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. When a family loses its primary breadwinner, can the surviving members expect immediate financial assistance from the deceased’s employer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Canara Bank

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment criteria: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) INSC 184 Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kana Vi vs. Abdul Munaf & Ors. (2025)

/ Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Sanjay Karol

Date of the Judgment: February 11, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 191 Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. How should a court determine the income of a claimant in a motor accident case, especially when the claimant has suffered significant disability? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Nur

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kana Vi vs. Abdul Munaf & Ors. (2025) Read Post »

Dowry Death: Supreme Court acquits husband due to lack of evidence on dowry demand in Criminal Appeal No.112/2014 (11 February 2025)

/ B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 161, Dowry Death, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 113B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Judges, K. Vinod Chandran, Offences Affecting the Human Body, Presumption as to Dowry Death, Statements to Police

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2025 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K. Vinod Chandran, J. Can a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stand when the essential ingredient of dowry demand is not sufficiently proven? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case involving a husband

Dowry Death: Supreme Court acquits husband due to lack of evidence on dowry demand in Criminal Appeal No.112/2014 (11 February 2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top