Auditor Cannot Ignore Interest Liability Based on Proposed OTS
NCLAT Delhi underscores that auditors must acknowledge interest liabilities, dismissing appeals against NFRA sanctions.
Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
NCLAT Delhi underscores that auditors must acknowledge interest liabilities, dismissing appeals against NFRA sanctions.
The Kerala High Court declared that recent amendments in stamp duty regulations applicable to amalgamation cannot be enforced retrospectively.
The Karnataka High Court allows a developer to pursue a ₹117 crore compensation claim despite the company being struck off by the Registrar of Companies.
The Reserve Bank of India has issued directives to Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Co-operative Bank Ltd., mandating specific measures to address regulatory compliance.
The Reserve Bank of India has published details regarding money market operations as of July 19, 2026. This includes significant liquidity trends and their implications for the financial market.
The removal of Satluj from ZEE5 raises concerns about censorship and the application of Section 69A, as examined in Anjali Tripathi's article.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled in SML Ltd. v. M/s Happy Agro Chemicals that isolated purchases cannot establish jurisdiction for patent infringement cases.
The Gujarat High Court has quashed GST assessment orders against a deceased taxpayer, leaving open the possibility for new proceedings. This ruling affirms taxpayer protections even posthumously.
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a challenge regarding the legality of GST arrests under Section 69. The appeal follows a Bombay HC decision, allowing for written submissions.

The Bar Council of India has introduced new regulations governing social media use by advocates, aiming to curb misleading legal content. Advocates and law students must disclose their status and the use of AI tools when sharing legal content.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed appeals regarding pre-1988 benami purchases, enforcing Section 4 of the Benami Act, which bars such suits. This ruling clarifies the legislative intent of restricting claims on pre-1988 transactions due to the enactment of the Benami Act.
The Bombay High Court's recent decision marks a departure from strict procedural timelines under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The ruling prioritizes substantive justice, posing questions about legislative intent and trademark prosecution's future.