M&A Law Offices

M&A Law Offices Comprehensive law firm that encompasses a wide range of legal specialties across various sectors.

*Supreme Court: Specific Performance of Agreement Can Be Denied Due to Inordinate Delay*In a significant judgment, the S...
06/08/2026

*Supreme Court: Specific Performance of Agreement Can Be Denied Due to Inordinate Delay*

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that specific performance of an agreement to sell is an equitable and discretionary remedy—not an automatic consequence of a valid contract. The Court held that a purchaser must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of the agreement until the final decree. Merely arranging funds at a later stage of the proceedings is insufficient to satisfy this requirement.

The Court further observed that an inordinate lapse of time between the ex*****on of the agreement and its final adjudication is a relevant factor while exercising discretion, particularly where enforcement would be inequitable or cause hardship to the seller. Finding that the purchasers failed to prove continuous financial readiness and had taken inconsistent positions during the litigation, the Court refused specific performance and instead directed refund of the advance amount with interest.

PropertyLaw ContractLaw CivilLaw IndianLaw LegalUpdate LegalNews Judiciary CourtJudgment CaseLaw Litigation Advocates Lawyers LegalProfession Justice Law

*Supreme Court: Section 498A IPC Applies to Marriage-Like Live-In Relationships*In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Cour...
04/08/2026

*Supreme Court: Section 498A IPC Applies to Marriage-Like Live-In Relationships*

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Section 498A IPC applies to live-in relationships that are "in the nature of marriage," provided there is an established intent to marry. The Court ruled that denying women in such relationships protection against domestic cruelty would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It clarified that this interpretation is limited to Section 498A, applies only to consensual adult relationships resembling marriage, and reaffirmed that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar must be strictly followed.

*The right to choose one's partner cannot come at the cost of the right to legal protection.*

'sRights Article14 CriminalLaw LegalUpdate IndianLaw Judiciary

*Supreme Court: Section 498A IPC Applies to Marriage-Like Live-In Relationships*In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Cour...
04/08/2026

*Supreme Court: Section 498A IPC Applies to Marriage-Like Live-In Relationships*

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Section 498A IPC applies to live-in relationships that are "in the nature of marriage," provided there is an established intent to marry. The Court ruled that denying women in such relationships protection against domestic cruelty would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It clarified that this interpretation is limited to Section 498A, applies only to consensual adult relationships resembling marriage, and reaffirmed that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar must be strictly followed.

*The right to choose one's partner cannot come at the cost of the right to legal protection.*

'sRights

*Concealment of Existing Marriage by Husband Does Not Defeat Woman's Right to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Allaha...
28/07/2026

*Concealment of Existing Marriage by Husband Does Not Defeat Woman's Right to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court*

The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman who was induced into marriage after the husband concealed his existing subsisting marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the marriage is legally void. The Court observed that a husband cannot take advantage of his own fraud to deny maintenance to a woman who entered the marriage in good faith.

The Court dismissed the husband's revision challenging the grant of maintenance and partly allowed the wife's plea for enhancement. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Badshah v. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse (2013) and Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2018), it emphasized that Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted purposively to prevent exploitation and destitution.

Noting that the husband, a permanent government employee (Lekhpal), had sufficient means and that the cost of living had increased, the High Court enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 12,000 per month with effect from November 24, 2023. It directed the husband to clear the arrears within six months and permitted the Family Court to recover the amount through salary attachment or other coercive measures in case of default.

'sRights

*Supreme Court Sets Aside Husband's Conviction, Condemns Mechanical Trial Of 17 Family Members In Dowry Death Case*The S...
14/07/2026

*Supreme Court Sets Aside Husband's Conviction, Condemns Mechanical Trial Of 17 Family Members In Dowry Death Case*

The Supreme Court has acquitted a husband in a 25-year-old dowry death case, calling the prosecution of 17 members of the matrimonial family a "clear travesty of justice." The Court held that relatives cannot be prosecuted merely because of their relationship with the deceased and found that the prosecution failed to prove dowry demand or cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. It also criticised the Patna High Court for mechanically remanding the case and observed that appellate courts must avoid prolonging criminal proceedings through unnecessary remands, especially in decades-old cases.

*Secretly Taping Spouse's Calls Without Consent Is a Privacy Violation, Says Telangana High Court*The Telangana High Cou...
13/07/2026

*Secretly Taping Spouse's Calls Without Consent Is a Privacy Violation, Says Telangana High Court*

The Telangana High Court has held that secretly recording a spouse's telephone conversations without consent violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and such recordings are inadmissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, while dismissing two civil revision petitions, observed that recording private conversations without the other spouse's consent amounts to a breach of privacy and cannot be relied upon in court.

The Court also ruled that electronic records cannot be admitted solely because they are in digital form. They must satisfy legal requirements, including relevance to the dispute and compliance with evidentiary rules.

In the case, the husband sought to rely on call recordings and other documents—including medical records, payment receipts, travel tickets, photographs, and money transfer records—to support his divorce petition on the ground of cruelty. The trial court rejected the evidence due to the absence of a mandatory Section 65-B certificate for the electronic records and because the documents were not shown to be relevant.

Upholding the trial court's decision, the High Court found that the additional documents did not support the husband's allegations of cruelty. Instead, they appeared to reflect a cordial and successful marital relationship. The Court therefore refused to interfere with the trial court's order and dismissed both revision petitions.

The ruling is notable because it differs from the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Vibhor Garg v. Neha, where the apex court held that secretly recording a spouse's conversations does not violate the right to privacy and may be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

FamilyLaw EvidenceLaw ElectronicEvidence ConstitutionOfIndia LegalNews IndianJudiciary CourtRuling MatrimonialDisputes LegalUpdate Law

*Mere Allegations Not Enough: Delhi High Court Refuses to Recuse Justice Sharma*The Delhi High Court, through Justice Sw...
21/04/2026

*Mere Allegations Not Enough: Delhi High Court Refuses to Recuse Justice Sharma*

The Delhi High Court, through Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case.

The Court held that a litigant cannot question or control the professional choices of a judge’s family in the absence of any evidence of misuse of office. It found no connection between the judge’s children—who are empanelled as government counsel—and the case.

Importantly, the Court distinguished between a real conflict of interest and one that is merely “portrayed,” noting that allegations must be backed by tangible evidence and a clear nexus to the dispute.

It also underscored that dissatisfaction with likely outcomes or a “general unease” cannot be a ground to allege judicial bias. Personal attacks on judges, the Court warned, ultimately undermine the integrity of the judicial institution.

JudicialIndependence LegalUpdate CourtRuling IndianLaw CBI Justice LegalNews Accountability DueProcess

Spouse Cannot Back Out of Mutual Divorce After Settlement AgreementSC has said that although either spouse can normally ...
15/04/2026

Spouse Cannot Back Out of Mutual Divorce After Settlement Agreement

SC has said that although either spouse can normally withdraw consent before a decree of divorce by mutual consent is finally passed, this right cannot be used to avoid a full and final settlement that both parties willingly accepted. The Court made this clear while strongly criticising the wife for trying to back out of a court-approved mediation settlement after already taking important benefits under it.

In this case, the parties had been married since 2000. After the husband filed for divorce in 2023, they settled all their disputes through mediation. As part of the settlement, they agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent. The husband agreed to pay Rs. 1.5 crore in two instalments, Rs. 14 lakh for a car, and return certain jewellery. In return, the wife agreed to transfer around Rs. 2.5 crore from their joint business account to him. Even after both sides had partly acted on these terms, the wife withdrew her consent before the second motion and also filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

Court explained that there is a difference between the legal right to withdraw consent in a mutual divorce case and the binding effect of a settlement reached through mediation. It held that once a settlement is recorded by the mediator and accepted by the Court, a party cannot simply walk away from it unless there is proof of fraud, coercion, undue influence, or failure by the other side to follow the settlement. Court said that allowing such conduct would weaken the entire purpose of mediation, and that any unjustified departure from settlement terms must be dealt with firmly, including by imposing heavy costs.

Court also rejected the wife’s claim that the husband had separately promised huge amounts of jewellery and gold outside the written settlement, calling such allegations improper. The domestic violence case was filed only later, after the husband had moved contempt proceedings. Since the marriage had completely broken down, the Supreme Court used its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, set aside the DV proceedings, and direct payment of remaining settlement amount.

*Foreign Arbitral Award Challenges in India: SC Clarifies Limits After Seat Court Rejection Under ‘Transnational Issue E...
08/04/2026

*Foreign Arbitral Award Challenges in India: SC Clarifies Limits After Seat Court Rejection Under ‘Transnational Issue Estoppel’*

The Supreme Court held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India cannot be resisted on grounds already rejected by the seat court, invoking the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel. The Court emphasized that while Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows limited grounds to refuse enforcement, it does not permit a re-examination of merits or factual issues already conclusively decided by the seat court. A party that has failed in its challenge at the seat cannot relitigate the same issues before Indian courts under the guise of “public policy.”

The dispute arose from a failed exit arrangement involving foreign investors, leading to arbitration in Singapore, where an award of approximately Rs. 1,400 crore was granted. The award was upheld by the Singapore High Court and later enforced by the Madras High Court. The promoters’ attempt to resist enforcement in India on grounds of alleged violation of the Companies Act was rejected.

The Supreme Court clarified that transnational issue estoppel prevents parties from reopening settled issues across jurisdictions, thereby reinforcing India’s commitment under the New York Convention. It also distinguished this doctrine from res judicata and upheld the enforcement of the award, dismissing the appeal with costs.

PublicPolicy TransnationalIssueEstoppel NewYorkConvention CommercialDisputes LegalUpdate JudgmentUpdate IndianJudiciary DisputeResolution CrossBorderLitigation LegalInsights ArbitrationPractice CorporateLaw EnforcementOfAwards RuleOfLaw CourtRuling

*Supreme Court: Conversion Beyond Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism Leads to Loss of SC Status* The Supreme Court upheld the...
24/03/2026

*Supreme Court: Conversion Beyond Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism Leads to Loss of SC Status*

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision that a person who has converted to Christianity and continues to profess and practice that faith cannot be treated as a member of a Scheduled Caste. Referring to Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the Court held that only persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism can claim Scheduled Caste status, and conversion to any other religion results in its immediate and complete loss. The Court made it clear that this restriction is absolute, and once a person falls outside Clause 3, no constitutional or statutory benefit, protection, reservation, or entitlement available to Scheduled Castes can be claimed.

The case arose from criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where the complainant, a pastor conducting regular Sunday prayers, alleged assault, threats, and caste-based abuse. The accused challenged the applicability of the SC/ST Act on the ground that the complainant had converted to Christianity and was no longer entitled to Scheduled Caste protections. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the complainant had been functioning as a pastor for more than a decade and was actively practicing Christianity at the time of the incident.

The Court also rejected the argument that possession of a caste certificate preserved his legal status, observing that non-cancellation of such a certificate does not by itself restore eligibility under the SC/ST Act after conversion. Any dispute regarding the certificate, it said, must be addressed separately under the relevant state law.

Address

Supreme Court Of India
Delhi
110001

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 8pm
Tuesday 8am - 8pm
Wednesday 8am - 8pm
Thursday 8am - 8pm
Friday 8am - 8pm
Saturday 8am - 8pm
Sunday 10am - 6pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when M&A Law Offices posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category