M/S Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P. 2025 INSC 1188 - The central issue was whether tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of the UP Trade Tax Act, 1948, applies to ink and processing materials used in printing lottery tickets.

This ruling reaffirms the scope of “transfer of property in goods” in works contracts, emphasizing the inclusion of goods consumed or chemically altered during execution.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Taxable event is the transfer of property in goods involved in works contracts.

✅ Consumables whose property is transferred remain taxable even if consumed.

✅ Lottery tickets are actionable claims, not goods, but materials used are taxable.

✅ Legal clarity on valuation and scope of Section 3F of UP Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Statutes:

✅ Section 3F(1)(b), UP Trade Tax Act, 1948

✅ Article 366(29-A)(b), Constitution of India

✅ Sale of Goods Act, 1930

#SupremeCourt #WorkContract #TaxLaw #UPTradeTax #TradeTax

What is the E - commerce Liability for Trademark Infringement? can platforms like Amazon be held directly accountable even when the infringing sale involves third parties?

Key Takeaways:

✅ Intermediary platforms may carry direct liability where knowledge and control over infringing sales are proven.

✅ Courts emphasized due process (valid service of summons, clarity in pleadings) before imposing massive damages.

✅ “Sufficient cause” under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC now includes egregious errors and procedural lapses, enabling unconditional stay of high-value decrees in exceptional cases.

✅ The case sets benchmarks for safe harbor protection, veil-piercing, and e-commerce responsibilities in trademark law.

Statutes Involved:

✅ Trade Marks Act, 1999

✅ Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Order XLI Rule 5, Rule 13, Rule 53; Order IX Rule 13)

✅ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 36)

#TradeMarkLaw #TradeMarkInfringement #SupremeCourt #EcommerceLiability 

This Supreme Court's judgment in a high-stakes matrimonial dispute underscores a critical principle under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court quashed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, citing its malicious timing as a "counterblast" to foreign court orders.

The ruling emphasizes that High Courts should not take a mechanical approach and must consider the surrounding circumstances to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Statutes Mentioned:

* Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 498-A of IPC

* Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) - Section 482 of Cr.P.C

* The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980

#CriminalLaw #Section498A #IPC #FIRQuashing

The Supreme Court judgment on AIFF reforms stands as a milestone for transparency and fair play in Indian sports administration. The Court anchored its reasoning in the constitutional value of fraternity, holding that sports institutions must remain inclusive and accessible to all—not just for play but in governance.

With specific directions on voting rights for eminent players, term limits, and accountability under the National Sports Code and National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the stage is set for greater professionalism and opportunity in Indian football.

Statutes:

* National Sports Code, 2011

* National Sports Governance Act, 2025

* AIFF Constitution (2025 Draft)

* Indian Constitution (Articles 38, 39(b), 152, 382)

#SupremeCourt #IndianFootball #SportsLaw #AIFF #Transparency

A recent Supreme Court judgment offers a crucial lesson on the "manufacture" definition.

The court emphasized that simply adding value is not enough. The key is a "transformation test" combined with a "marketability test".

It distinguished between "parts" and "accessories," ruling that integrating integral components into a product to give it a new character, identity, and functional utility amounts to "manufacture." This ruling has significant implications for manufacturing and tax law.

Statutes and Laws:

* Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 2(f), Section 3

* Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

THE CASE OF A HUSBAND, A WIFE, AND ‘THAT PERSON’ IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT : WILL THERE NOW BE DAMAGES IN CIVIL COURT FOR ADULTERY? #Adultery #CivilOffense #DelhiHighCourt

Did you know a single drafting mistake can sink an entire cheque bounce case? KNOW WHEN DOES YOUR SECTION 138 NIA ACT NOTICE BECOMES INVALID AND NON - MAINTAINABLE. Statutes Cited:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138, Proviso (b), Section 141, Section 142 #SupremeCourt #ChequeBounce #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #Section138

Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 2025 INSC 1135 - CONVICTION IN MURDER CASES BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REQUIRES A COMPLETE AND UNBROKEN CHAIN OF PROOF.

The bench set aside convictions where the prosecution failed to establish motive, reliable witness testimony, and a credible recovery of the weapon. The Court reiterated that SUSPICION CANNOT SUBSTITUTE PROOF; a reminder of the stringent standards of criminal justice.

Key Statutes Cited

* Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 34, Section 109

* Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 106, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27

#SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #EvidenceLaw #CircumstantialEvidence

Vandana vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1098, details an appeal regarding a conviction for forgery and attempting to cheat. Vandana, the appellant, challenged the High Court's decision that upheld her conviction for altering marks on academic documents to gain college admission. The Supreme Court reviewed the legal arguments, including the prosecution's failure to prove authorship of the forgery and the lack of expert handwriting analysis. Ultimately, the court overturned Vandana's conviction, citing insufficient evidence to establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the flawed questioning under Section 313 CrPC, and the principle that suspicion cannot substitute legal proof.#Section313CrPC #indianlaw #SupremeCourt

"Jyoti Sharma vs. Vishnu Goyal & Anr. 2025 INSC 1099," details a Supreme Court of India case concerning an eviction dispute. The appellant, Jyoti Sharma (landlord), sought to evict the respondents, Vishnu Goyal & Anr. (tenants), from a shop room due to bona fide need to expand her husband's business and for recovery of defaulted rent from January 2000. The tenants challenged the landlord's title, disputing the will through which she inherited the property and claiming the original landlord, Ramji Das, had no legitimate ownership. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the landlord, reversing lower court decisions and ordering the tenants' eviction and payment of rent arrears, granting them a six-month period to vacate.

#nyaysamachar #tenantrighhts