sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Bengaluru Stampede Executives, Emphasizes Due Process and Fair Arrests

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Bail to Bengaluru Stampede Executives, Emphasizes Due Process and Fair Arrests Supreme Court Stays ₹317 Crore VAT Demand on Antrix, Safeguarding India’s Space Commerce Growth Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Case Against Judge, Reinforces Child Protection and Judicial Accountability Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Supreme Court Grants Bail to Bengaluru Stampede Executives, Emphasizes Due Process and Fair Arrests Kashish jahan 16 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India grants interim bail to executives involved in the Bengaluru IPL stampede case. This landmark decision highlights due process, legal safeguards, and the protection of personal liberty in high-profile arrests. HIGHLIGHTS Supreme Court upholds due process in high-profile arrest case Interim bail granted to four executives in IPL stampede incident Emphasis on legal safeguards, fair investigation, and individual rights Background: Bengaluru Stampede at IPL Victory Celebration On 12 June 2025, the Karnataka High Court granted interim bail to four corporate executives linked to a tragic stampede in Bengaluru during an IPL victory celebration. The event led to multiple casualties and raised serious questions about public safety and police accountability. The court found that the arrests lacked proper procedural legitimacy, pointing to flaws in the investigation process and premature detention without sufficient legal grounds. Supreme Court Reiterates: Arrest Must Follow Legal Standards Clear Criteria for Arrests The Court emphasized that arrests must meet defined legal criteria, including: Reasonable suspicion based on facts Clearly defined charges Demonstrable necessity for arrest These standards are aligned with longstanding Supreme Court precedents on arrest procedures. Importance of Fair Investigation The ruling also criticized the investigation for not adhering to procedural norms. Courts reminded law enforcement agencies that any deviation from due process could lead to judicial scrutiny or even case dismissal. Liberty and Justice in High-Profile Cases This judgment sends a strong message about the importance of constitutional safeguards, especially in sensational or politically sensitive cases. By granting bail, the Court highlighted: The presumption of innocence The right to personal liberty The dangers of arrests made under public or political pressure This reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding individual rights against arbitrary or hasty legal actions. Upholding Due Process: A Warning to Law Enforcement The verdict serves as a reminder to police and investigative authorities that failure to follow proper legal procedures can: Undermine public trust Lead to judicial rebuke Result in dismissal of charges due to illegally obtained arrests It emphasizes that effective policing must go hand-in-hand with respecting legal boundaries. Conclusion: A Landmark Judgment for Legal Safeguards The Supreme Court of India’s decision to grant bail in the Bengaluru stampede case is more than a procedural ruling — it’s a powerful reaffirmation of the rule of law. In the face of media scrutiny and political influence, the judiciary stood firm in defending due process and personal liberty. This case sets a precedent for future high-profile arrests in India, reminding all stakeholders that justice must be fair, lawful, and constitutionally sound. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Across States in Matrimonial Disputes: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Governor’s Limited Discretion to Withhold Assent and Summon Punjab Legislative Assembly | State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Chargesheets: Not Public Documents, No Mandatory Online Upload by Investigating Agencies | Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Bengaluru Stampede Executives, Emphasizes Due Process and Fair Arrests Read More »

Supreme Court Stays ₹317 Crore VAT Demand on Antrix, Safeguarding India’s Space Commerce Growth

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Stays ₹317 Crore VAT Demand on Antrix, Safeguarding India’s Space Commerce Growth Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Case Against Judge, Reinforces Child Protection and Judicial Accountability Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 Supreme Court Stays ₹317 Crore VAT Demand on Antrix, Safeguarding India’s Space Commerce Growth Kashish jahan 16 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India stays Karnataka’s ₹317 crore VAT demand on Antrix Corporation, protecting ISRO’s commercial wing and reinforcing legal certainty for India’s space commerce and PSU operations. Introduction: Landmark Supreme Court Stay on Antrix VAT Demand On 12 June 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted an interim stay on Karnataka’s ₹317 crore VAT demand against Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of ISRO. This important decision protects Antrix from immediate financial strain related to satellite launch services between 2008 and 2014, ensuring smooth continuation of India’s space commerce activities. Legal Questions Surrounding VAT on Satellite Launch Services Is Antrix’s Satellite-Launch Activity Taxable Under Karnataka VAT Law? At the heart of this case lies a crucial legal question: does Antrix’s satellite launch service fall under the taxable category as per Karnataka’s VAT regulations? The Supreme Court’s interim stay signals judicial caution in imposing retrospective taxes on strategic state enterprises like Antrix, which plays a pivotal role in India’s space infrastructure. Impact on PSU Operations and Strategic Enterprises Ensuring Operational Continuity for Public Sector Units (PSUs) The stay on the ₹317 crore VAT demand provides vital relief to Antrix and potentially other government-linked enterprises. This ruling helps prevent hidden fiscal liabilities that could disrupt the operations of strategic PSUs crucial for national development. Broader Policy Implications for Taxation in Strategic Sectors Potential Reforms in Indirect Tax Laws Affecting PSUs This landmark stay may trigger a broader review and reform of VAT laws impacting PSUs and strategic sectors. Aligning tax policies with the goals of national infrastructure development and international commerce will be essential to encourage investment and growth in India’s space industry. Conclusion: Balancing Revenue Collection with India’s Space Ambitions The Supreme Court’s decision to stay Karnataka’s VAT demand on Antrix is more than just legal relief—it reflects a balanced approach between government revenue interests and uninterrupted advancement of India’s space-backed commercial projects. This ruling strengthens legal certainty for PSUs and underscores the importance of supporting strategic sectors without undue fiscal burdens. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Across States in Matrimonial Disputes: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Governor’s Limited Discretion to Withhold Assent and Summon Punjab Legislative Assembly | State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Chargesheets: Not Public Documents, No Mandatory Online Upload by Investigating Agencies | Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Stays ₹317 Crore VAT Demand on Antrix, Safeguarding India’s Space Commerce Growth Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Case Against Judge, Reinforces Child Protection and Judicial Accountability

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Case Against Judge, Reinforces Child Protection and Judicial Accountability Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Case Against Judge, Reinforces Child Protection and Judicial Accountability   Kashish Jahan 16 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India refuses to quash POCSO charges against a serving judicial officer accused of child molestation. This landmark ruling emphasizes child protection, judicial accountability, and reinforces strict adherence to child justice laws in India. Introduction On 13 June 2025, the Supreme Court of India made a pivotal decision by refusing to quash POCSO charges against a serving judicial officer accused of repeatedly molesting his minor daughter between 2014 and 2018. This unprecedented ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to child protection and due process, irrespective of the accused’s professional standing. Supreme Court of India’s Stance on POCSO Allegations Against Judicial Officers The refusal to quash the case sends a clear message: no individual, including those in powerful legal positions, is above the law when it comes to protecting minors. This ruling reinforces the principle that allegations involving child abuse must be investigated thoroughly, ensuring justice and safety for children. Importance of Judicial Accountability in Child Protection Cases The Supreme Court of India‘s decision affirms that judicial officers and other professionals do not enjoy immunity from child protection laws like POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act). Upholding accountability within the judiciary is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that those in positions of authority face consequences when accused of crimes against children. Setting a Precedent for Judicial Ethics and Due Process This judgment establishes a critical precedent for future cases involving allegations against legal professionals. It highlights the Court’s commitment to prioritizing child safety and due process over professional privilege or hierarchy. The ruling strengthens ethical standards within the judiciary and assures that child abuse allegations will be handled with utmost seriousness. Conclusion: Strengthening Child Justice and Legal Integrity in India The Supreme Court of India’s refusal to quash the POCSO case marks a significant milestone in reinforcing child justice principles in India. It sends a strong signal that protecting children and ensuring justice transcends social status or professional rank. This ruling is a positive step towards safeguarding vulnerable minors and enhancing the credibility of the legal system. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Across States in Matrimonial Disputes: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Governor’s Limited Discretion to Withhold Assent and Summon Punjab Legislative Assembly | State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Chargesheets: Not Public Documents, No Mandatory Online Upload by Investigating Agencies | Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Case Against Judge, Reinforces Child Protection and Judicial Accountability Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential Kashish jahan 16 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India has ruled that land registration alone doesn’t confirm property ownership. Learn what this means for buyers, lawyers, and the real estate industry. Landmark Ruling on Property Ownership – What You Need to Know On June 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal verdict on land and property rights. The Court ruled that land registration, although a legal requirement, does not independently establish ownership of immovable property. To hold a valid legal title, property holders must present supporting documentation such as sale deeds, inheritance papers, and other proof of entitlement. Why Land Registration Alone Isn’t Enough Legal Title Requires Supporting Documentation This ruling underlines that a registered property title is procedural, not proof of rightful ownership. Ownership must be backed by authentic legal documents in accordance with Indian property law. Failing to establish a valid chain of ownership can leave buyers vulnerable to future property disputes or litigation. Implications for Property Buyers and Stakeholders For homebuyers, real estate agents, lawyers, and financial institutions such as banks, this decision necessitates a stronger focus on due diligence. Land registration must now be seen as one step in a broader legal verification process. Reducing Risk of Property Disputes The judgment aims to minimize common issues in the Indian real estate sector, such as: Use of forged documents Disputes over title transfer Misunderstandings around the legal weight of registration With this ruling, the Supreme Court seeks to strengthen property ownership laws and reduce the legal burden on courts handling land disputes. Impact on the Real Estate Sector Tighter Regulations and Compliance Ahead This verdict is likely to trigger regulatory reform across India’s real estate industry. Key changes may include: Mandatory title due diligence before property sales Increased adoption of title insurance Stricter scrutiny by financial institutions before approving loans These steps can help build a more secure and transparent property transaction ecosystem. Key Takeaways for Property Transactions Land registration is not proof of ownership by itself. Valid legal documentation is essential to establish property rights. All parties must engage in comprehensive legal checks before transactions. The ruling encourages responsible practices across India’s real estate market. Final Thoughts The Supreme Court ruling is a game-changer for property law in India. It makes clear that ownership is a legal matter, not just an administrative record. This decision offers greater clarity, helps prevent real estate fraud, and reinforces the need for due diligence in every property deal. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Across States in Matrimonial Disputes: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Governor’s Limited Discretion to Withhold Assent and Summon Punjab Legislative Assembly | State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Chargesheets: Not Public Documents, No Mandatory Online Upload by Investigating Agencies | Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Land Registration Isn’t Proof of Ownership: Legal Documentation Still Essential Read More »

Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SHURUWAT FOUNDATION Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Kashish jahan 16 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India is set to examine whether life sentences for multiple murders should run consecutively or concurrently. This key verdict could reshape criminal sentencing, remission, and parole laws in India. Introduction: A Turning Point in Indian Sentencing Law On June 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear a significant petition challenging a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which imposed consecutive life sentences on a convict for the double murder of a man and his minor daughter. This case brings to light a critical question in criminal jurisprudence: Should multiple life imprisonment sentences run concurrently or consecutively? Key Legal Issue – Consecutive vs. Concurrent Life Sentences At the heart of the matter is the legal debate surrounding the execution of life sentences when a convict is found guilty of multiple serious crimes. The core issue is: Can Indian courts order multiple life terms to run one after another to effectively extend imprisonment and restrict parole/remission, or must they be served concurrently? Impact on Criminal Jurisprudence and Sentencing Norms Redefining Life Imprisonment in India The outcome of this case will have a major influence on how life imprisonment in India is defined and implemented. It will clarify: Whether life terms can be stacked to prolong actual time spent in prison. How remission, parole, and early release will be calculated in multiple conviction cases. This case could set a binding precedent for future rulings on sentencing consistency and judicial discretion. Social and Legal Implications of the Verdict Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the judgment could: Strengthen judicial discretion in denying remission for heinous crimes. Push for a uniform sentencing framework to avoid discrepancies across jurisdictions. Influence public perception of justice, fairness, and victim rights in high-profile criminal cases. What This Means for India’s Legal System This hearing is more than just a review of a High Court decision—it’s an opportunity for the Supreme Court to address long-standing ambiguities in sentencing law. The ruling will help balance: The severity of punishment for grave crimes. The constitutional principles of fairness and rehabilitation. Conclusion: A Pivotal Supreme Court Ruling Awaits As India’s top court prepares to deliver its verdict, legal experts, policymakers, and the public await guidance on a fundamental aspect of the Indian criminal justice system. Whether the Court upholds consecutive life sentences or mandates concurrent terms, the decision will leave a lasting mark on the evolution of Indian criminal law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Across States in Matrimonial Disputes: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Governor’s Limited Discretion to Withhold Assent and Summon Punjab Legislative Assembly | State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Chargesheets: Not Public Documents, No Mandatory Online Upload by Investigating Agencies | Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023) Sada Law • June 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court to Decide on Consecutive Life Sentences: Landmark Case on Criminal Sentencing in India Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SHURUWAT FOUNDATION CALL FOR PAPERS BY JAI JAGAT SUMMIT Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 15 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to senior Andhra journalist Kommineni Srinivasa Rao, arrested over derogatory remarks made by a panelist on his Sakshi TV show. The court upheld his freedom of speech and journalistic integrity. Supreme Court Grants Bail to Journalist Kommineni Srinivasa Rao Over Talk Show Controversy On June 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to veteran journalist Kommineni Srinivasa Rao, arrested in connection with controversial remarks made by a guest panelist on his live television show aired on Sakshi TV. Context: Arrest Over Panelist’s Derogatory Remarks The arrest occurred on June 9 after a panelist on Rao’s talk program, KSR Live Show, allegedly referred to Amaravati as a “capital of prostitutes” and claimed “only AIDS patients live there.” The remarks sparked outrage and led to legal complaints citing offense to women’s sentiments. Supreme Court Upholds Free Speech and Press Freedom The bench, comprising Justices P.K. Mishra and Manmohan, emphasized that Rao had not made the statement himself. Highlighting the importance of safeguarding press freedom, the Court stated: “Considering that the petitioner has not made the statement himself, his journalistic participation in a live TV show needs protection, and so does his freedom of speech. He is to be released on bail.” Defense and Counterarguments in Court Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Rao, argued that the journalist bore no responsibility for the guest’s comments. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, insisted that Rao encouraged the offensive remarks by laughing during the broadcast. However, the court found no merit in the prosecution’s claim. “When someone says something shocking, we find it funny,” the bench observed. The phrase “Er äußert es nicht” (“He did not express it”) summarized the Court’s position on Rao’s role. Rao’s Age and Journalistic Career Considered The Court also took into account Rao’s age—approximately 70 years—and his longstanding career in journalism. Recognizing his contribution to Indian media and the importance of a free press, bail was duly granted. Conclusion: The ruling marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate around freedom of speech in India and the responsibilities of media professionals. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of context, intent, and the protection of journalistic voices in a democratic society.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Andhra Journalist Over Controversial TV Show Remarks Read More »

NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SHURUWAT FOUNDATION CALL FOR PAPERS BY JAI JAGAT SUMMIT INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF SUSHANT SINGH ADV. NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 15 June 2025 The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted Gensol Engineering into insolvency proceedings after serious regulatory findings by SEBI and a ₹992 crore debt crisis. Learn how this impacts the EV sector and stakeholders like BluSmart, IREDA, and PFC. NCLT Approves Insolvency Proceedings Against Gensol Engineering On June 13, 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Ahmedabad officially admitted an insolvency application filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) against Gensol Engineering Limited, the parent company of BluSmart, a notable name in India’s electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem. Judicial Panel Rejects IREDA’s RP Recommendation A coram led by Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Kumar ruled in favor of initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process but declined IREDA’s suggested resolution professional (RP), opting instead for one from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) list. Gensol’s Troubles Began With SEBI’s Interim Order The case’s roots trace back to April 15, when SEBI issued an interim order alleging Gensol had diverted public and borrowed funds toward unrelated luxury assets, such as a high-end apartment. The order also noted the use of forged documents—including “no objection certificates”—submitted to credit rating agencies. Exaggerated EV Claims and Regulatory Action SEBI accused Gensol of misleading investors with inflated EV procurement figures, even though actual production was minimal. As a result, the company’s promoters, Anmol Singh Jaggi and Puneet Singh Jaggi, were barred from participating in the securities market and from holding executive positions. SEBI’s Actions Upheld by the Securities Appellate Tribunal On May 7, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) declined to stay SEBI’s order. Gensol was instructed to respond to the interim findings, and SEBI was directed to pass a final order within four weeks of the hearing. NCLT Freezes Accounts and Orders Asset Disclosure By May 28, the NCLT had frozen Gensol’s bank and demat accounts, restricted trading of its securities, and ordered detailed asset disclosures. These measures extended to 16 related entities and their respective promoters. Ministry of Corporate Affairs Joins the Legal Proceedings The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) submitted a separate petition against Gensol and affiliated companies under Sections 241, 242, and 246, along with Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013, citing severe corporate governance violations and misappropriation of funds. Debts Recovery Tribunal Freezes Assets Worth ₹992 Crore Meanwhile, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Delhi granted interim relief to both IREDA and Power Finance Corporation (PFC) in three separate recovery suits totaling over ₹992 crore. The DRT ordered a freeze on secured assets, seizure of EVs, and prohibition on transferring intellectual property owned by BluSmart. Delhi High Court Also Engaged in the Legal Tangle Multiple lessors have approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection for the electric vehicles leased to BluSmart amid ongoing legal uncertainty. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

NCLT Admits Gensol Engineering to Insolvency Process Amid SEBI Probe and ₹992 Crore Debt Read More »

Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SHURUWAT FOUNDATION CALL FOR PAPERS BY JAI JAGAT SUMMIT INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF SUSHANT SINGH ADV. LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LEGAL SOLUTIONS Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 15 June 2025 The Kerala High Court has raised urgent concerns over the health risks of microplastics from plastic food delivery containers, urging a thorough investigation into their impact on food safety and public health. Kerala High Court Flags Microplastic Contamination in Food Delivery On June 13, 2025, the Kerala High Court expressed serious concerns about the widespread use of plastic containers in food delivery. The Court emphasized the growing danger of microplastic ingestion, especially when hot food is packed in plastic containers, raising significant health and safety questions. Food Delivery and Microplastics: A Threat to Public Health Presiding over the case Prasanna EV v. State of Kerala & Ors, Justice Devan Ramachandran called attention to the increasing reliance on food delivery services, particularly by children and youth. He warned that microplastics leach into food when hot items are stored in plastic containers, potentially leading to their ingestion by unsuspecting consumers. In a strong statement, the judge asked:“Are the plastic containers used for delivery safe? Little kids are relying on this food delivery. You should realize that microplastics are getting into your body.” Link Between Microplastics and Serious Health Conditions Justice Ramachandran pointed out that continuous consumption of food contaminated with microplastics could be linked to severe health conditions, including cancer and organ damage affecting the liver, lungs, colon, and intestines. These alarming claims underline the urgency of regulatory scrutiny and action. Directive for Investigation into Plastic Food Packaging In response to the issue, the Court directed the Additional Director General of Prosecution to investigate the practice of using plastic containers for food delivery and assess its health implications. The appointment was recommended by Mary Meera Joseph, a senior government pleader. Justice Ramachandran also acknowledged the assurance from Gracious Kuriakose, a senior counsel experienced in environmental and health matters, who confirmed that the issue will be thoroughly examined and reported back to the Court in the next hearing. Regulatory Oversight Needed on Plastic Use in Food Delivery The Court highlighted that current regulatory frameworks may not fully understand or address the long-term effects of microplastic exposure. The rising dependence on food delivery platforms calls for urgent reform in how food is packaged and delivered to consumers across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Raises Alarm Over Microplastics in Food Delivery Containers and Potential Health Risks Read More »

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SHURUWAT FOUNDATION CALL FOR PAPERS BY JAI JAGAT SUMMIT INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF SUSHANT SINGH ADV. LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LEGAL SOLUTIONS INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KMJ LEGAL Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 15 June 2025 Delhi High Court denies bail to Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah in a UAPA case, citing credible charges, national security concerns, and risk of witness tampering. Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmad Shah in UAPA Case On June 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Shabir Ahmad Shah, a prominent Kashmiri separatist leader, in a case filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Shah had appealed the ruling of a special court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which had previously denied him bail. Charges Against Shabir Shah Deemed Prima Facie Credible Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, presiding over the appeal, found that the charges against Shah appeared credible on initial evaluation. The Court emphasized that Shah had failed to fulfill the legal burden required to obtain regular bail. “There exist reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations against the Appellant seem prima facie credible,” the Court stated. NIA Accusations: Secessionist Activities and Terror Funding According to the NIA, Shah and others were involved in a conspiracy to separate Jammu & Kashmir from India. The agency accused them of collaborating with various terrorist groups and banned organizations to conduct secessionist activities in the region. Shah, the leader of the Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), is accused of financing terrorism and inciting violence, including organizing stone-pelting protests. Co-Accused Include Yasin Malik and Abdul Rashid Sheikh Alongside Shah, others named in the case include Yasin Malik and Abdul Rashid Sheikh, who also face charges under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Concerns Over Witness Tampering and Repeat Offenses The High Court raised concerns that Shah, due to his past involvement in similar cases, might influence or intimidate witnesses. The judges emphasized that his role as the chairman of the JKDFP increased the likelihood of continued engagement in unlawful activities. “The Appellant might attempt to manipulate evidence or influence witnesses who have yet to be questioned,” the Court remarked. Freedom of Speech Cannot Justify Incendiary Rhetoric While acknowledging the constitutional right to freedom of speech, the Court highlighted that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when used to incite violence or disrupt public order. “Freedom of speech cannot be misused to deliver inflammatory speeches that threaten national integrity,” the judgment stated. Multiple FIRs and No Bail Requests in Other Cases The Court noted that Shah had several FIRs registered against him for serious criminal offenses. However, it remains unclear if he filed bail applications in those cases or the status of such petitions. House Arrest Plea Also Rejected In addition to denying bail, the Court also refused Shah’s request for house arrest, citing the severity of the charges and his history of similar offenses. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in UAPA Terror Case Read More »

Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADITI MOHONI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIAMART LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SHURUWAT FOUNDATION CALL FOR PAPERS BY JAI JAGAT SUMMIT INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF SUSHANT SINGH ADV. LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LEGAL SOLUTIONS INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KMJ LEGAL Karnataka High Court Upholds POCSO Case Against IISc Professor, Orders Fast-Tracked Trial Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 15 June 2025 The Supreme Court has sought Karnataka’s response regarding the alleged ban on Thug Life, starring Kamal Haasan. Learn more about the legal battle, threats, and political controversy affecting the film’s release. Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Reply on Alleged Ban of Kamal Haasan’s Film Thug Life The Supreme Court of India has asked the Karnataka government to respond to a petition seeking police protection for the release of the film Thug Life, starring veteran actor Kamal Haasan. Certified Film Facing Threats and a De Facto Ban The Bench comprising Justices P.K. Mishra and Manmohan noted that although the film had been approved by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), its screening was being obstructed by threats of violence from fringe groups. This, according to the petition, amounted to a de facto ban. The Court issued a formal notice, stating: “In light of the demonstrated urgency, we issue notice to the respondent.” Petition Highlights Law and Order Failure The petition was filed by M Mahesh Reddy, a resident of Bengaluru, who claimed that the State had failed to uphold law and order. He alleged that theaters faced direct threats from fringe groups, and yet no First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed. Advocate A Velan, appearing for the petitioner, argued: “The State has surrendered. One theater was attacked while women and children were still inside. The management ran for cover.” Controversial Remarks Spark Political Backlash The controversy intensified following Kamal Haasan’s comment that “Kannada was born out of Tamil,” sparking outrage and boycott calls across Karnataka. Violence Threats from Karnataka Rakshana Vedike After Victory Cinema announced it would screen the film, Karnataka Rakshana Vedike (KRV) President TA Narayana Gowda allegedly threatened to “set theaters on fire” if any of Haasan’s films were released in the state. The plea also highlighted a disturbing social media post that openly called for a repeat of the 1991 anti-Tamil riots, predicting violence on the film’s release date, June 5. Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce Declares Film Ban As KRV members attempted to besiege Victory Cinema on June 1, tensions rose. Subsequently, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) declared a “ban” on the film under perceived pressure. Police Protection Request Diverted by Apology Demands Although the film’s producer approached the Karnataka High Court seeking police protection, the proceedings reportedly focused on whether Kamal Haasan should issue a public apology. The petitioner criticized this shift, labeling it a form of appeasement that undermined his fundamental rights. During the hearing, Haasan refrained from apologizing and instead stated that he was in dialogue with KFCC. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Air India Flight AI171 Crash: 265 Dead, 1 Survivor in Ahmedabad Tragedy Involving Boeing 787 Sada Law • June 15, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Upholds POCSO Case Against IISc Professor, Orders Fast-Tracked Trial Sada Law • June 14, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Allows 10% Maratha Reservation for 2025, Final Verdict Pending Sada Law • June 14, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Seeks Karnataka’s Response on Thug Life Film Ban Amid Kamal Haasan Controversy Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote