Legal 60

The Delhi High Court in Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray (2026), delivered an important judgment recognising the economic value of homemakers and reaffirming that non-earning spouses cannot be denied maintenance merely because they are educated or capable of employment. The Court upheld the grant of ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife and

Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University (RPNLU), Prayagraj organized an International Colloquium on the theme “Legal Systems in Transition: Global Responses to the Digital Revolution”, bringing together eminent academicians, legal scholars, policymakers, and professionals from India and abroad. The colloquium focused on examining the evolving relationship between law, technology, and governance in an increasingly digitalized

The Supreme Court of India, in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026 INSC 175), passed an important order criticising the growing judicial practice of remanding cases to authorities merely for “consideration” or “reconsideration.” The Court observed that such directions often prolong litigation without providing effective relief to litigants. Although the matter

Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasised that retirement benefits and service-related dues form part of constitutional and statutory rights and cannot be denied arbitrarily. The order arose from a writ petition in Prasanna Namdev (Soni) v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 37546 of 2024 (decided on 18 February 2026), challenging the

In a significant decision emphasising accountability in public infrastructure works, the Delhi High Court refused anticipatory bail to contractors accused of the death of a young motorcycle rider who fell into an uncovered excavation pit on a public road. The Court held that contractors entrusted with public works cannot evade responsibility by blaming subcontractors or

The law of limitation in criminal proceedings ensures that prosecutions are initiated within a reasonable time so that evidence remains reliable and accused persons are not subjected to indefinite uncertainty. However, determining the starting point of limitation often raises complex legal questions, particularly where the offence is discovered first, and the identity of the offender

INTRODUCTIONIn The General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla & Others, reported as 2026 INSC 199, decided on 26 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, set aside the Judgment of the Orissa High Court and restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First

INTRODUCTIONIn ICICI Bank Limited v. ERA Infrastructure (India) Limited & Ors. and connected matters, 2026 INSC 201, decided on 26 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta, conclusively held that simultaneous insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) can be initiated against both a

INTRODUCTIONIn Ghanshyam Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), 2026 INSC 194, decided on 25 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and concurred by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, dismissed the Criminal Appeal challenging conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Kwality Wall’s (India) Limited – Demerger of its Ice Cream business from Hindustan Unilever Limited The leading Indian law firm, Khaitan & Co advised Kwality Walls (India) Limited (KWIL) on the demerger of the ice cream business of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) into KWIL and, subsequently, on the preparation and filing of the Information Memorandum