Latest News Unnecessary remand of matters generates fresh round of litigation, should be avoided. An application was filed by private respondents before the Collector seeking correction of a map for their plot. The application was dismissed. The order dismissing the application was challenged by the private respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was also dismissed. About 17 years thereafter, the private respondents filed a fresh application for correction of the revenue map. This application was also dismissed and the order was challenged by the private respondents. In the appeal, the order was upheld on the ground that there was no good reason to reopen the issue settled long back. Against the orders, the private respondents filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the orders and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration. The High Court order was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the issue regarding correction of map stood settled between the parties when the appeal filed by the private respondents against the order passed by the Collector, was dismissed. The maps were already final. They could not be permitted to raise the same issue after a gap of more than 17 years as this was not a case where any error was found in the revenue record which deserved correction. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court remanding the matter was set aside. A 2-Judges bench of the Supreme Court held – “17. We may also add that earlier view by this Court was that in case there were violations of principles of natural justice, the matter was to be remanded for affording opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. However, with the passage of time, the view changed. The idea is to curtail the litigation and not generate it. Any unnecessary remand by a Higher Court generates fresh round of litigation, which should be avoided. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others [(1999) 6 SCC 237]; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others [(2021) 19 SCC 706] and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 SCC Online SC 493].”. SUVEJ SINGH v. RAM NARESH & ORS., S.L.P.(C) No.1681 of 2024, SUPREME COURT – 09 DECEMBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Unnecessary remand of matters generates fresh round of litigation, should be avoided December 9, 2025/Read More Growing trend of overturning judgments by succeeding Benches or specially constituted benches painful November 26, 2025/Read More Whether a letter of intent creates enforceable rights in favour of a bidder November 24, 2025/Read More

Latest News Growing trend of overturning judgments by succeeding Benches or specially constituted benches painful. This order concerned an application by a murder accused seeking modification of his bail conditions.  A 2-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held – “47. Though elementary, it requires restatement that it is fundamental to the rule of law to maintain the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts. Judicial orders which determine issues arising between the parties to the lis bind them and its conclusive nature ensures resolution of disputes so that justice is served. The strength of judicial power lies less in the hope of perfection and more in the confidence that decisions, once made, are settled. As Justice Robert Jackson famously said “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final”. By upholding the finality of verdicts, not only is endless litigation prevented but public confidence in the judiciary is also maintained. In the recent past, we have rather painfully observed a growing trend in this Court (of which we too are an indispensable part) of verdicts pronounced by Judges, whether still in office or not and irrespective of the time lapse since pronounced, being overturned by succeeding benches or specially constituted benches at the behest of some party aggrieved by the verdicts prior in point of time. To us, the object of Article 141 of the Constitution seems to be this: the pronouncement of a verdict by a bench on a particular issue of law (arising out of the facts involved) should settle the controversy, being final, and has to be followed by all courts as law declared by the Supreme Court. However, if a verdict is allowed to be reopened because a later different view appears to be better, the very purpose of enacting Article 141 would stand defeated. The prospect of opening up a further round of challenge before a succeeding bench, hoping that a change in composition will yield a different outcome, would undermine this Court’s authority and the value of its pronouncements. A matter that is res integra may not be reopened or revisited or else consistency in legal interpretation could be compromised and the special authority that is invested in decisions of this Court, under Article 141, lost. The weight and influence of that special authority depend on the credibility we, the Judges, give to it. As Judges of this Court, we are alive to the position that overturning a prior verdict by a later verdict does not necessarily mean that justice is better served.”. The Bench further held that – “Judicial discipline, propriety and comity, which are also inseparable parts of a just and proper decision-making process, demand that a subsequent bench of different combination defers to the view expressed by the earlier bench, unless there is something so grossly erroneous on the face of the record or palpably wrong that it necessitates a re-look in exercise of inherent jurisdiction either by a review petition or through a curative petition as explained in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra – (2002) 4 SCC 388.”. SK. MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR., M.A. in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.43/2025, SUPREME COURT – 26 NOVEMBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Growing trend of overturning judgments by succeeding Benches or specially constituted benches painful November 26, 2025/Read More Whether a letter of intent creates enforceable rights in favour of a bidder November 24, 2025/Read More Nine months delay in filing ITR not condoned November 20, 2025/Read More

Latest News Whether a letter of intent creates enforceable rights in favour of a bidder. This case emanated from a dispute concerning government tenders and dealt with the question – Whether a Letter of Intent created enforceable rights in favour of a bidder. A 3-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI, Surya Kant held – “15. These authorities collectively articulate a coherent doctrine: an LoI creates no vested right until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. It is but a “promise in embryo,” capable of maturing into a contract only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions or upon the issue of an LoA. A bidder’s expectation that such a contract will follow may be commercially genuine, but it is not a juridical entitlement. To hold otherwise would be to bind the State in contract before it has consciously chosen to be bound—a proposition foreign to both contract law and public administration.”. The Bench further dealt with the question – Whether the Cancellation Letter was arbitrary or procedurally unjust? The Bench reiterated the decision of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703 – “judicial review in contract matters operates only where the action is “palpably unreasonable or absolutely irrational and bereft of any principle.”” and held that – “The legitimacy of administrative reasoning must be tested with reference to the material that existed at the time the decision was made, not by subsequent embellishment. To simplify: what is permissible is elucidation of contemporaneous reasoning already traceable on record; what is impermissible is the invention of fresh grounds to retrospectively justify an otherwise unreasoned order.”. The Bench also looked into the aspect of whether the Cancellation Letter suffered from arbitrariness and held – “50. The test for arbitrariness under Article 14 is whether the decision is uninformed by reason or guided by irrelevant considerations. … The law does not demand that the State speak only after it has made up its mind; it demands only that its final decision be traceable to reason, not to whim. … Where the effect of administrative action is to enhance openness and restore competition, Courts are doubly cautious before imputing mala fides.” and further held – “Lapse of time does not convert a provisional arrangement into a vested right. The expectation that the Government will ultimately formalise an LoI may be legitimate in the commercial sense, but it is not enforceable in law unless the conditions for formal acceptance are met. The constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness is not a charter of commercial expectations; it is a safeguard against irrationality, and none is established in this record.”. STATE of HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. v. M/s OASYS CYBERNATICS PVT. LTD., SLP(C) No.6531/2025, SUPREME COURT – 24 NOVEMBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Whether a letter of intent creates enforceable rights in favour of a bidder November 24, 2025/Read More Nine months delay in filing ITR not condoned November 20, 2025/Read More Business Judgement Rule and breach of fiduciary duty November 3, 2025/Read More

Latest News Nine months delay in filing ITR not condoned. This writ petition challenged an order rejecting an application filed by the petitioner u/s.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay of nine months in filing the revised Income Tax Return (ITR). A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was not convinced with the arguments on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the earlier ITR was not filed properly but with errors wherein the loss from business was shown as a speculative loss and this was sought to be corrected by filing a revised ITR with an application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. It was further argued that the petitioner was a non-resident Indian which also resulted in delay in filing the revised ITR. The Bench held that “nine months is a very huge period” and further found the arguments “not appealing as e-portal was accessible globally”. The Bench further held – “8. We have been informed that the petitioner is the President of a Trust that runs a Hospital at Dwarka. If that be so the petitioner is presumed to have the knowledge of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) including the knowledge to know the manner in which a right/correct return is filed. Surely it should not take nine months to realize that initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return.”. The Division Bench held that the authority had rightly dismissed the application u/s.119(2)(b) and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition being without any merit. SANJAY KHURANA v. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, W.P.(C) NO.17379/2025, DELHI HIGH COURT – 20 NOVEMBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Nine months delay in filing ITR not condoned November 20, 2025/Read More Business Judgement Rule and breach of fiduciary duty November 3, 2025/Read More Courts should be wary of setting the criminal or investigative ball rolling against any entity merely on being petitioned by… November 3, 2025/Read More

Latest News Business Judgement Rule and breach of fiduciary duty. This case concerned an arbitration award and proceedings related thereto. Parties had litigated for over a period of 15 years and the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty cropped up after the Award had the imprimatur of the Supreme Court. The question that arose for consideration was – “Whether the High Court was justified in not entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Section 47 of CPC and in dismissing the same?”. The Court was looking at the issue whether at least prima facie a case of breach of fiduciary duty was established by MMTC. On the basis of material placed on record, the Division Bench held that MMTC was not able to even prima facie demonstrate that the personnel of MMTC did not act in the best interest of the company. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court proceeded to set out the legal parameters as laid down in judicial precedents in cases involving breach of fiduciary duty. The Division Bench held –             “a court cannot be swayed by what the Court thinks would have been a reasonable course of action for the director to adopt but the duty is to enquire whether on the available evidence before the Court to consider whether the course adopted by the director was one reasonably competent directors could have adopted”. and further –             “as long as the decision taken falls within the range of options reasonably available, Court would defer to the decision of the Board under the “Business Judgment Rule””. The Division Bench also held – “An objection petition under Section 47 should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial.” And dismissed the appeal. The Court added a small postscript – “Whether in Government, Public Sector Corporations or even in the private sector, the driving force of the entity are the persons who administer them. A certain play in the joints is inevitable for their day-to-day functioning. If they are shackled with the fear that, their decisions taken for the day-to-day administration, could years later with the benefit of hindsight, be viewed with a jaundiced eye, it will create a chilling effect on them. A tendency to play it safe will set in. Decision making will be avoided. Policy paralysis will descend. All this will in the long run prove detrimental not just to that entity but to the nation itself. We are not to be understood to be condoning decisions taken for improper purposes or extraneous considerations. All that we are at pains to drive home is that great caution and circumspection have to be exercised before such allegations are brought forward and adequate proof must exist to back them. Otherwise for fear that carefully built reputations could be casually tarnished, best of talent will not be forthcoming, especially for government and public sector corporations.”. MMTC LIMITED v ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13321 OF 2025, SUPREME COURT – 03 NOVEMBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Business Judgement Rule and breach of fiduciary duty November 3, 2025/Read More Courts should be wary of setting the criminal or investigative ball rolling against any entity merely on being petitioned by… November 3, 2025/Read More Each breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as a ‘false promise’ – depends on its own facts. October 31, 2025/Read More

Latest News Courts should be wary of setting the criminal or investigative ball rolling against any entity merely on being petitioned by speculators, howsoever well-intentioned they may be. In this case, the petitioner challenged a purely commercial contract executed between the parties and a nationalised bank. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held: “…earning of a profit in every commercial transaction into which they embark cannot be regarded as a solemn legal duty of banks. All that is expected is that all efforts should be made to ensure that the necessary checks, enquiries, and due diligence is observed in such cases. Once this is done, the transaction cannot be called into question, in a court, on the ground that it was not financially expedient, or that it resulted in a loss which might have been avoided, had another avenue been explored.”. The Bench held that the requisite degree of financial prudence was exercised by the bank and “entertaining such petitions could throw the entire banking system into jeopardy, and disincentivise banks and financial institutions from entering into bona fide commercial transactions”. Without meaning, in any manner, to doubt the bona fides of the present petitioner, the Bench further held that entertaining such litigation may lead to the possibility of blackmail, in the garb of public interest litigations. “Every such transaction would become vulnerable to be dragged into Court at the instance of persons who claimed to be public spirited citizens, with fragmentary information”. The Delhi High Court held that the petition was merely in the nature of a shot in the dark, based on surmises, conjectures and assumptions, “a writ court cannot set aside a private contract executed between the parties” and the writ petition was dismissed in limine. INFRASTRUCTURE WATCHDOG v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) 4123/2025, DELHI HIGH COURT – 03 NOVEMBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Business Judgement Rule and breach of fiduciary duty November 3, 2025/Read More Courts should be wary of setting the criminal or investigative ball rolling against any entity merely on being petitioned by… November 3, 2025/Read More Each breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as a ‘false promise’ – depends on its own facts. October 31, 2025/Read More

Latest News Each breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as a ‘false promise’ – depends on its own facts. In this case, the allegations made in the FIR were that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. A single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the material placed on record revealed that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual. The Court held: “There is a difference between making a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas, in case of breach of promise, the possibility that accused might have given a promise with intent to marry her but subsequently might have encountered certain unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage. Each case therefore would depend upon its own case.”. The Court further held: “The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations under Section 376 IPC. However, it is equally well-settled that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of coercion or revenge when a consensual relationship turns sour. The protection of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, must remain paramount, especially when the allegations appear to be exaggerated or motivated.”. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and it was directed that if the petitioner was arrested, he be released on furnishing a personal bond and subject to the conditions contained in the order. SUMIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI, BAIL APPLN. 3767/2025, DELHI HIGH COURT – 31 OCTOBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Business Judgement Rule and breach of fiduciary duty November 3, 2025/Read More Courts should be wary of setting the criminal or investigative ball rolling against any entity merely on being petitioned by… November 3, 2025/Read More Each breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as a ‘false promise’ – depends on its own facts. October 31, 2025/Read More

Latest News Supreme Court upholds transgender rights. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in a significant pronouncement on transgender rights, has awarded compensation to a transwoman whose services as a teacher were terminated by two private schools, one in Uttar Pradesh and another in Gujarat, within a year, on the ground of her gender identity. The Bench also constituted a Committee to be headed by Justice Asha Menon, retired judge of the Delhi High Court, to formulate an equal opportunity policy for the protection of the rights of transgender persons. The remit of the Committee is to: Formulate an equal opportunity policy for transgender persons; Examine the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 Act and 2020 Rules; Recommend measures for reasonable accommodation in workplaces and institutions; Create a grievance redressal mechanism; Facilitate name and gender change processes; Ensure inclusive medical care for transgender and gender diverse persons; and Strengthen protections for gender non-conforming persons. The Bench not only granted compensation for the unjust termination but also issued interim guidelines to ensure equality and protection of transgender persons at workplaces until the government formulates a comprehensive national policy. The judgment builds upon the Supreme Court’s historic judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 438, which first legally recognized the transgender community as the ‘third gender.’ Following NALSA, Parliament enacted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, aiming to safeguard transgender persons from discrimination in education, employment and healthcare. JANE KAUSHIK v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1405/2023, SUPREME COURT – 17 OCTOBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Supreme Court upholds transgender rights October 17, 2025/Read More Assessing officer cannot act beyond the mandate of s.144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and contrary to directions of… October 10, 2025/Read More Plaintiff as master of proceedings is entitled to choose remedy and forum October 9, 2025/Read More

Latest News Assessing officer cannot act beyond the mandate of s.144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and contrary to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in s.144(C) The issue concerned interpretation of s.144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bombay High Court held: “23. The requirements of Section 144 C (13) are: (a) There ought to be directions passed by the DRP as per sub-section (5) of Section 144(C); (b) The directions passed by the DRP under Section 144 C (5) ought to be received by the Assessing Officer; (c) It casts a burden on the Assessing officer by the mandatory language of the Section to complete the assessment; and (d) That the Assessing Officer ought to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which such direction of the DRP is received. 24. The language of Section 144 C (13) is clear, unambiguous and mandatory. It provides a mechanism for the steps that must be taken after proceedings under subsection (5) of Section 144(C) are completed. The mechanism envisaged under the section has a strict timeline, which cannot be deviated from by the Assessing Officer. … 30. The scheme of the Section clearly provides that the Assessing Officer is bound by the directions and he has to complete the assessment within the timelines provided by the Section. The reason for imposing a strict timeline in the Section is that the Assessing Officer must follow the directions issued by the DRP, which are provided for his guidance in completing the assessment. It is a settled principle of law that, where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner. The statutory provisions cannot be waived or deviated from.” The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the submission of the Revenue that in case of remand proceedings, the timelines provided by s.144(C)(13) are not applicable and the assessment can be completed beyond the time limits provided by the section. ARCHROMA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [earlier known as Huntsman International (India) Private Limited] v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS., BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 10 OCTOBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Green crackers to light up Diwali festivities October 15, 2025/Read More Assessing officer cannot act beyond the mandate of s.144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and contrary to directions of… October 10, 2025/Read More Plaintiff as master of proceedings is entitled to choose remedy and forum October 9, 2025/Read More

Latest News Plaintiff as master of proceedings is entitled to choose remedy and forum In this case, the Delhi High Court noted that in determining jurisdiction in landlord–tenant matters, the Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the escalation of rents in metropolitan cities and courts cannot ignore prevailing market conditions and the rise in rents while considering valuation. The Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal, (1988) 3 SCC 423, that underscored that unless mala fides are demonstrable, the Court should ordinarily accept the plaintiff’s valuation, particularly where relief is not susceptible to precise monetary quantification. It was held: “32. Further, the doctrine of dominus litis entitles the plaintiff to put a valuation to the reliefs claimed and to choose the forum for pursuit of the claim. This discretion is not absolute, but it cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious. 33. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as dominus litis, has the prerogative to initiate proceedings, choose the forum, and value the suit for the relief claimed, subject only to the limitation that the valuation must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or mala fide. Courts ordinarily respect the Plaintiff’s valuation, unless the valuation is shown to be capricious or clearly unreasonable. This principle has been consistently affirmed by various decisions of this Court.” and the objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected. On Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court held that before passing a judgment on admissions, the Court must be satisfied that the admission is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. It was held: “41. The aforesaid statutory provision has crystallized that in a suit for possession, based on landlord–tenant relationship, a decree can be passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, if the following three conditions are met: The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; That the tenancy is not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; and That the tenancy has been duly terminated.” and all the above conditions were found satisfied. The Court further held – “It is a settled principle that a tenant, while continuing in possession, cannot challenge the title of the landlord”. The appeal was dismissed and it was held that the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was properly passed. NASEEM AHMED v. DEEPAK SINGH, DELHI HIGH COURT – 09 OCTOBER 2025. Latest News Hearings Law Lawsuit Green crackers to light up Diwali festivities October 15, 2025/Read More Assessing officer cannot act beyond the mandate of s.144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and contrary to directions of… October 10, 2025/Read More Plaintiff as master of proceedings is entitled to choose remedy and forum October 9, 2025/Read More