The recent judgment in Bharat Mittal case marks an important moment in the evolving jurisprudence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , particularly on the uneasy interface between vicarious criminal liability and appellate conditions of deposit. At its core, the case raises a deceptively simple but legally fraught question: can an appellate court insist on a mandatory 20% deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act from a convicted director when the company the jurist

In a landmark ruling on 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court in Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd.  (2025 INSC 1253) addressed the increasing phenomenon of forum shopping  in intellectual property disputes , while clarifying the independent statutory footing of “groundless threats” actions under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court ordered the transfer of Eureka Forbes’ patent infringement suit from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, w

The Singapore High Court’s decision in Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd and others  [2025] SGHC 154 delivers an in-depth...

India’s labour laws have long remained a complex maze a tangle of 29 archaic legislations that not only confused compliance but left...

The recent $5 million lawsuit against Nike over its abrupt shutdown of RTFKT, its much-hyped Web3 subsidiary, exposes the troubling gap...

In a judgment that promises to reshape the contours of Indian arbitration law, the Supreme Court on April 17, 2025, delivered a...

n a robust affirmation of procedural discipline in white-collar crime litigation, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated criminal...

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment has settled, with finality, several key legal questions surrounding limitation under the Insolvency...

Imagine being a director of a company  and suddenly receiving a court summons  for a crime you had no direct involvement in. Scary,...