Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The Tripura High Court acquitted the accused in a cheque dishonour case, ruling that the notice served on a family member did not comply with statutory requirements under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The Tripura High Court acquitted an accused in a cheque dishonour case, ruling that a notice served on a family member was not valid compliance with statutory requirements under section 138 of the NI Act.
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal upheld a previous ruling, rejecting a borrower-bank settlement due to non-compliance with a refund order.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a conviction for cheque dishonour, asserting that cash transactions above ₹20,000 do not invalidate the existence of debts under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ruling clarifies the burden of proof in such cases.
The Karnataka High Court has accepted a mediation settlement resolving a long-standing land acquisition dispute, thus promoting the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in such cases.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that plaintiffs can receive a full court fee refund when withdrawing a civil suit after accepting an insolvency resolution plan, recognizing it as a settlement.
The Bombay High Court defined 'mesne profits' and established criteria for determining claims arising from wrongful possession.
The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on petitions challenging irregularities in the Bar Council of Delhi elections after intensive hearings over the weekend.
The Saket District Court ruled in favor of Anamika Sood, recognizing her ownership of the song 'Ferrareee' and rejecting Saregama’s claims. This ruling highlights potential misuse of copyright as a tool for commercial control rather than legal protection.
The Allahabad High Court criticized the expectation that judges handle excessive caseloads, stating that such pressures can undermine the judicial process.
The Supreme Court has clarified that limitation cannot be treated as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the CPC as it doesn’t affect the court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit.
The Supreme Court has clarified that limitation should not be treated as a preliminary jurisdictional issue under Section 9A of the CPC, emphasizing its applicability to defects affecting a court's competence to entertain a suit.