3,988 results found

This initiative is motivated towards reducing the pendency of ongoing litigation in India and to reduce the burden on the Indian judiciary in order to facilitate speedy justice.

In the case of MSC Software Corporation & Anr Vs. S. Ramanathan & Anr CS(COMM) 1675/2016 & IA No.16124/2016 at the High Court of Delhi, the Plaintiffs ("MSC Software") ...

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 18.05.2026 in the matter of M/s R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sharad Maheshwari & Anr., dismissed an appeal challenging the decree of District Judge directing refund of INR 18,00,000/- to the purchasers in a real estate dispute arising out of cancellation of a villa allotment and alleged forfeiture of earnest money.

This month’s Real Estate Updates cover key legislative and regulatory developments impacting apartment ownership, real estate project registrations and cooperative housing societies. The updates include the Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill, 2026, proposed changes to the framework governing apartment ownership and redevelopment, TNRERA’s extension of project registration timelines in view of the prevailing situation in West Asia, and the Maharashtra Government’s decision to lift the ban on allotment of state-owned land to cooperative housing societies.

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred to the Larger Bench the question of issuance of consolidated show cause notices by the Revenue department for multiple financial years/tax periods.

Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India?

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Assessing Officer vs. M/s Nestle SA and Others, elucidated law relating to applicability of the Most Favoured Nation clause in the protocol(s) for availing benefit of a DTAA ...

In view of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Supreme Court of India by an order dated March 27, 2020 extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws ...

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 435 of the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), vide Notification No. S.O. 3804 (E), dated December 4, 2017, ...

This was held in the matter of Drip Capital Inc. vs. Concord Creations (India) P. Ltd. decided on 8th November, 2021...

Supreme Court through its judgement dated 05.05.2026 in the matter of Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and Others held that the corporate veil of holding companies may be lifted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) where subsidiary companies are inextricably connected so as to form part of one concern.

The Court held that service of a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS needs to be carried out in a manner that protects this substantive right of the individual, particularly because non-compliance with such a notice may result in arrest.

In a recent pronouncement delivered on 28 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, addressed a recurring question that troubles trial courts and High Courts alike: at what point does a minor regulatory infraction under motor vehicle legislation transform into the graver offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code.

The division bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of Hon'ble Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon'ble Justice Mr Hemant Gupta, in its judgment dated 13 March 2019 in Ripudaman Singh v Balkrishna, ...

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code stands to be one of the most direly needed legislation in the wake of the increasing corporate culture

The Madras High Court in the case of K. Manivannan v. The Chairman, IPAB & Ors. dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the IPAB, dismissing the revocation application...

In continuation to the Bajaj-TVS Patent infringement dispute, with respect to the launch of “FLAME”, Bajaj moved to the Supreme Court vide SLP No(s).13933/2009 against the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court that allowed the launch of Flame in the market.

The High Court of Allahabad, through its judgment dated 19.11.2025 in Sonali Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and Others , held that proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act...