Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“We cannot keep our eyes shut and be a mere mute spectator of the fraud, which the builders have played on the home buyers and Noida Authority”

non voluntary amalgamation
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court clarified that Clause 3(3) of amalgamation scheme does mention regarding continuation of legal proceedings by or against a transferee bank, but such amalgamation is aimed at securing larger public interest.

food adulteration act
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Section 19(2)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased the article of food from any manufacturer with a written warranty.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the criminal complaint filed

Case BriefsSupreme Court

    Supreme Court: In an appeal against a judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application filed

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Nidhi Pandey*

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter pertaining to vicarious liability of directors of the company alleged for offences under

Patiala House Courts, Delhi
Case BriefsDistrict Court

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi: While addressing a case of medical negligence Prayank Nayak, MM-01, expressed that doctors can be summoned for

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: In an interesting case regarding a controversial web-series, Tandav broadcasted on Amazon Prime on 16-01-2021, Siddharth, J., had denied

New releasesNews

Editors: Purvi Pokhariyal, Amit K. Kashyap and Arun B. Prasad

Cyril Amarchand MangaldasExperts Corner

by Ankoosh Mehta*, Smruti Shah**, Neham Tayal***, Durga Agarwal†, King Dungerwal‡

Case BriefsForeign Courts

United States District Court, Columbia: Royce C. Lamberth, J., held that, a mandated pre-publication review process is not an unconstitutional prior restraint.