M.V. LEELAVATHI VERSUS DR. C. R. SWAMY (Supreme Court) 2025 INSC 994

Determination of alimony requires consideration of multiple factors. The husband has the capacity to pay a higher amount than that awarded by the Family Court. At the same time, the wife, although unemployed, is highly qualified and has the ability to earn and sustain herself. She is not in a state of acute economic deprivation. A balanced approach, weighing the husband's capacity and the wife's needs, must be adopted.

A. RANJITHKUMAR VERSUS E. KAVITHA (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 978

There is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. They have been living separately for nearly 15 years. There is no vestige of matrimonial relationship between them, and neither party has shown any inclination to resolve their differences. Furthermore, the husband has been remarried since 05.03.2017. In these circumstances, there is no purpose in continuing the legal relationship between the parties. The marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Atlantis Intelligence Ltd vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)

Service of the order by registered email is a valid service and the date on which such service is made would count as the date for the purpose of limitation. If the assessee does not file an appeal before expiry of the time frame for filing appeal, he cannot file a writ petition to circumvent the limitation period.

ASHOK DHANKAD versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 974

Section 439CrPC: Principles to be kept in mind while granting bail and at the time of cancellation of bail

Puneet Batra vs UOI (Delhi High Court)

An Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment by a search and seizure conducted at his office unless and until there is some material for the GST Department to show that the advocate himself is not merely representing his client but is also personally involved in the alleged illegality. For the said purpose, some prima facie material would have to be shown by the GST Department.

Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court) 2025:BHC-OS:11546-DB

Sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses qualifies for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 911

Entries in the Balance Sheet constitute valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even without creditor name

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 909

Notices under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 must be served as per the prescribed physical modes and cannot be served via WhatsApp or similar electronic means

Gurpratap Singh v. Aashna Kaur (Delhi High Court) CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 266/2025,

Though the wife is highly qualified and has excellence skills in HR and may with an effort be able to get a job, till such time she is able to get gainful employment or develop the source of income, she has a right of being supported and managed by her husband

Srimati Sethy and others versus Competent Authority & Land Acquisition Officer, NH-6(49), Keonjhar (Orissa High Court)

In the absence of a legal partition of the joint and unpartitioned property, the transferors of the sale deeds cannot transfer any defined portion of joint property nor can the purchaser take possession of such specific land. At best, the purchaser steps into the shoes of the transferor and may seek partition, but cannot claim possession simpliciter. The law is equally clear that no one can transfer a better title than they possess. Therefore, any sale deed purporting to convey specific demarcated land from within unpartitioned coparcenary property is legally void to the extent it exceeds the seller’s undivided share, and is not merely voidable.