INTRODUCTION
In Adalat Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar, 2026 INSC 403, decided on 22 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, reaffirmed a settled but often contested principle of
Latest from The Indian Lawyer Blog - Page 4
FROM CONVICTION TO ACQUITTAL: THE ROLE OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW
INTRODUCTION
In The State of Assam v. Moinul Haque@ Monu (decided on 16 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, decided by the Supreme Court of India, marks a significant reiteration of
PREMATURE REJECTION, DENIED JUSTICE: REVISITING ORDER VII RULE 11
INTRODUCTION
In M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & Ors. (decided on 21 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, examined the scope of rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule
MAINTENANCE FOR CHILD CANNOT BE DEMANDED FROM A MAN IF A DNA TEST SHOWS HE IS NOT THE FATHER
INTRODUCTION
In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed
IBC MECHANISM NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DECREE EXECUTION OR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam, 2026 INSC 410, on April 23, 2026, comprising of a Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. clarifying whether a decree-holder can invoke insolvency proceedings
COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO FRAME POINTS FOR DETERMINATION EVEN IN EX- PARTE SUITS
INTRODUCTION
In PRAMOD SHROFF vs MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA 2026 INSC 378 decided on 16 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice SANJAY KAROL and Justice AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH clarified a crucial principle related to whether failure
5 IMPORTANT PIECES OF EVIDENCE TO GATHER AFTER A REAR‑END IMPACT
Rear end collisions are among the most common roadway accidents, yet their consequences are often underestimated. While these crashes may seem straightforward, the aftermath can involve serious injuries, disputed liability, and complex insurance discussions. The strength of any claim following
SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO REGISTER A SEPARATE FIR AGAINST WIFE AND HER FAMILY FOR GIVING DOWRY
INTRODUCTION
In Rahul Gupta vs Station House Officer 2026 INSC 374 decided on 16 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarified a crucial principle related to Section 3 (penalizing giving
REJECTION OF PLAINT VS. BAR TO SUBSEQUENT SUIT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ORDER VII RULE 11 AND ORDER II RULE 2 CPC.
INTRODUCTION
In S. Valliammai & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Ors. (decided on 16 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, reiterated that rejection of a plaint is a stringent and
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: SUPREME COURT ENDS DECADE-LONG MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION
INTRODUCTION
In XXX v. YYY, SLP (Civil) No. 28311 of 2024), decided on 7 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to