Primelegal Team, Author at Prime Legal Law Firm Blogs

SC INTERPRETATION WITH RESPECT TO IDENTIFYING THE SCOPE OF COMPENSATION UNDER PERSONAL ACCIDENT COVER

Case name: MANJUSHA & ORS. vs UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Case number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.5885 of 2019 Judgmen

SC ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF CHARGE-SHEET ISSUED BY AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE MINOR PENALTIES

Case name: Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa Case number: SLP(Civil) No. 7149 of 2023 Judgment date: 25.07.2025 Bench / Judges: Justice S

7/11 Blasts Case: SC Halts Acquittal, Declines immediate custody of accused

Introduction In a notable decision, the Supreme Court has put a stay on the operation of a judgment of High Court of Bombay wherein the court had a

SC Endorses Allahabad HC Guidelines: No Immediate Arrest in 498A FIRs, Mandates Family Welfare Committee Review

Introduction Supreme Court of India in the case of “SHIVANGI BANSAL VERSUS SAHIB BANSAL” 2025 INSC 883 endorsed the safeguards laid down by the

BOMBAY HC ACQUITS ALL ACCUSED IN 2006 MUMBAI TRAIN BLAST CASE: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Introduction In May of 2025 the Bombay High Court gave what is being called a break through judgment which saw the acquittal of all 12 men found gu

TIMESLINE FOR ASSENT TO BILL: SC’S OBSERVATION OF THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY POWERS

Introduction In what is a large turn of events which has put into question the 2000 balance of power between the Union and the States the Supreme C

SC COMMUTES DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE IN CHILD RAPE AND MURDER CASE

CASE NAME: JAI PRAK Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 331-332 OF 2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT: JULY 16, 2025 JUDGES: HON’BLE JU

SC UPHOLDS SARFAESI REMEDIES OVER UNPROVEN TENANCY CLAIM

CASE NAME: PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED VS. SH. MANOJ SAHA & ANR. CASE NUMBER: SLP © NO. 7288 OF 2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: JULY 15, 2025 JUDGES:

USE OF MAY IN CONTACT CLAUSE DOES NOT CREATE BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: DECISION BY SC

Introduction Under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that a statement that parties “may”

MARRIAGE DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY: DECISION BY CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Introduction The Chhattisgarh High Court recently turned down a husband’s request for his wife’s call detail records (CDR) in a landmar

Blogs And Articles