Shilpa Shetty secured partial relief as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ordered fresh examination of her Rs 12.5 crore gift dispute, directing the Assessing Officer to reassess evidence under Section 68 after granting opportunity to establish genuineness.
The Bombay High Court ruled charitable trusts cannot be denied Section 12AB registration or renewal solely for lacking an irrevocability clause. Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla affirmed trusts are presumed irrevocable unless expressly revocable.
Today, On 20th March, The Chief Justice of India asked the lawyer to move the Delhi High Court after a runaway couple’s protection plea was mentioned before the Supreme Court of India. He questioned, “Why this step-motherly treatment to Article 226 jurisdiction?”
The Supreme Court has quashed the copyright infringement case against filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh over his film ‘Kahaani 2’. The Court set aside both the summoning order and High Court decision, bringing complete relief to the director.
The Supreme Court of India has designated seven former High Court judges as Senior Advocates following a Full Court meeting led by the Chief Justice of India. A March 19, 2026 notification grants retrospective effect from March 18, 2026.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur set aside a trial court order allowing secondary evidence under Section 60 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court held, “Secondary evidence cannot be permitted when original exists.”
The Delhi High Court refused a plea by Ramesh Chandra Singh seeking BCD seat reservation for junior lawyers, noting he contested elections despite knowing the Bar Council of Delhi policy beforehand.
Razorpay sued PayU in Delhi High Court alleging its IPL 2025 founders campaign was copied; Justice Jyoti Singh denied interim relief and adjourned hearing to March 30, after examining similarities in ads.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court said litigants cannot backtrack or blame their lawyer after withdrawing a case. It added that “a counsel is an officer of the court and not merely a mechanical agent of the litigant” while rejecting such excuses.
Elvish Yadav reacts after Supreme Court dismisses FIR in the snake venom case, calling it his “Independence Day.” He questions who will compensate for the “pain and trauma” faced by his family over the last 2.5 years.
