Author: Adv. Fiza Ahmand
In a recent order in Giriraj & Ors. v. Mohd. Amir & Ors., the Supreme Court of India addressed delay by the Allahabad High Court in…
The news concerns the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Ors. v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors., where the Court held that a tenant…
News summary In M/S Sri Om Sales v. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel & Anr, the Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court order which…
News Summary: In Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal confined to the question whether the appellant’s conviction under Section…
In Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna & Ors (2025 INSC 1391), the Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the widow and mother of a deceased…
News Summary The Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v Union of India & Anr, 2025 INSC 1330, has struck down key provisions of the Tribunals…
News summary In a significant ruling in 2024, the Supreme Court of India clarified how review petitions should be handled in cases that were decided based…
The Supreme Court has held in a recent judgment that the mere use of the word “arbitration” in an agreement would not be an arbitration agreement…
The Supreme Court has ruled that a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection in the country, even without a permanent office or physical presence. Deciding in Pride Foramer S.A. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2025 INSC 1247), the Court restored Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relief to the company and overturned the Uttarakhand High Court’s restrictive stance. It clarified that a “permanent establishment” applies under tax treaties, not domestic law, and directed reassessments accordingly. The judgment emphasizes that bids and correspondence can demonstrate ongoing business activity in India.
The Supreme Court clarified key principles on oral gifts (Hiba) under Mohammedan law in *Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen* (October 7, 2025). It ruled that oral gifts cannot be “surprise instruments” and must meet three simultaneous conditions: donor’s declaration, donee’s acceptance, and delivery of possession. Without evidence like mutation or acts of ownership, the gift claim fails. The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court ruling and held the 2013 suit time-barred, stressing strict proof and possession as decisive for validating Hiba claims.
News
- Trending
- Featured Post
- Know The Law
- High Court
- Supreme Court
- Neuro Amicus Exclusive
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.