What are the opening hours?

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

M&A Law Offices, Supreme Court of India, Delhi (2026)

18/02/2026

Supreme Court: Disclosure Statement Outside Custody Cannot Be Relied Upon Under Section 27 Evidence Act

Case Title: Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2026 [ Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5624 of 2024]

On February 17, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, reiterating that a disclosure statement is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act only when it is made while the accused is in police custody. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran observed that the recovery of bone remnants, allegedly discovered pursuant to the accused’s statement, could not be relied upon since the memorandum was recorded at 10:30 a.m., whereas the arrest memo showed that the accused was formally arrested only at 10:00 p.m. the same day.

The Court emphasized that although “custody” does not necessarily mean formal arrest and may include restraint or surveillance, there was no material to suggest that the accused was under any such control at the time of making the statement. Referring to earlier precedents, the bench clarified that information received from a person not in custody falls outside the scope of Section 27.

While such a statement may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act to indicate conduct, it remains a weak piece of evidence and cannot independently sustain a conviction. Given the absence of a definite time of death, delayed reporting of the child’s disappearance, and serious investigative lapses, the Court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal.

BenefitOfDoubt DueProcess RuleOfLaw CriminalJustice LegalUpdate

09/02/2026

⚖️ Digital Arrest Scams: A Compliance Imperative for NBFCs & Digital Lenders

Recent observations of the Supreme Court of India mark an important moment for NBFCs and digitally driven lending institutions. The Court emphasised that sharp deviations in customer transaction behaviour - particularly sudden, high-value transfers by low-frequency account holders must trigger timely alerts and preventive safeguards. The message is clear: in a technology-led financial system, risk detection and customer protection are integral compliance functions, not optional safeguards.

With the RBI moving towards standardised SOPs, temporary debit controls, and AI-enabled monitoring, NBFCs will increasingly be evaluated on how effectively their internal systems detect, flag, and respond to suspicious activity. Reactive responses after fraud has occurred may no longer be sufficient. Governance, escalation protocols, and audit-ready compliance frameworks will play a decisive role in regulatory and judicial scrutiny.

At M&A Law Offices, we see this as a critical opportunity for NBFCs to reassess transaction-monitoring architecture, internal accountability, and legal risk alignment in an evolving digital finance landscape.

RegulatoryCompliance FinancialGovernance LegalInsights FintechCompliance AML FraudPrevention SupremeCourtIndia CorporateLaw

03/02/2026

*Industrial Disputes Act Inapplicable to Temple Trusts: Supreme Court*

The Supreme Court recently held that a temple trust does not fall within the definition of an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore upheld the termination of an accountant employed by the trust, despite the absence of a formal inquiry and his long service of over twelve years. A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale observed that a temple, being a धार्मिक and charitable institution, could not be brought within the “four corners” of the expression “industry” as it neither undertakes commercial activity nor operates for profit.

The appellant, appointed in 1977 with the Laxminarayan Dev Trust, was allegedly orally terminated in 1999 without any domestic inquiry. His subsequent representations and conciliation efforts proved futile, and both the Labour Court and the Gujarat High Court rejected his claim for reinstatement on the same ground.

While refusing to interfere with these findings, the Supreme Court took note of the appellant’s uninterrupted and blemish-free service and directed the Trust to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 12 lakh in the interest of justice, in full and final settlement of all claims.

30/01/2026

📢 Legal Internship Opportunity at M&A Law Offices

Location: New Delhi | Mode: On-Site
Position: Legal Intern
Start Date: February, March, April & May, 2026
Duration: 6-8 weeks

⚖️ About the Internship:
Join M&A Law Offices for a hands-on internship experience where you’ll contribute meaningfully to real legal work, deepen your legal research skills, and gain exposure to professional litigation practices.

Key Responsibilities:
1. Conduct in-depth legal research and assist counsels in drafting legal documents.
2. Support the preparation of motions, writs, pleadings, briefs, and other filings.
3. Review and summarize case law, statutes, and legal articles relevant to active matters.

Eligibility & Skills:
• Strong written and oral communication skills
• Proficiency in legal research methodologies and tools
• Detail-oriented with the ability to work independently
• Working knowledge of MS Word and Adobe

📍 Office Address:
M&A Law Offices
40/17, Plot No. 17, LGF, Pocket 40,
Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019

📩 How to Apply:
Interested candidates can email their resume and cover letter to:
👉 [email protected]

Step Into the Courtroom of Opportunity - Intern with M&A Law Offices and Build the Legal Future.

12/01/2026

Supreme Court Holds That Workers Engaged Through Contractors Are Not on Par with Regular Employees

The Supreme Court has ruled that workers engaged through third-party contractors are not entitled to parity in pay or status with regular government employees, holding that such equivalence would undermine transparent public recruitment processes. The Court observed that regular public employment is a “public asset” governed by open, merit-based procedures, whereas contractor hiring is at the contractor’s discretion, making the two categories legally distinct.

The case involved sanitation and other workers engaged by Nandyal Municipal Council through contractors for nearly three decades. While the Andhra Pradesh High Court had granted them minimum time-scale pay and increments, the Supreme Court set aside that order, noting the absence of a direct employer-employee relationship between the workers and the municipality.

Distinguishing the Jagjit Singh case, the Court clarified that equal pay principles apply where contractual workers are directly employed by the State, not through intermediaries. However, on humanitarian grounds, the Court directed the municipality to consider possible regularization of these workers, without treating it as a precedent.

13/10/2025

⚖️ GenAI in Law: How the U.S. and India Are Shaping the Future of Justice

Generative AI (GenAI) is changing how courts work — from America’s busy courtrooms to India’s growing legal system.

In the United States, AI has already made its way inside the courtroom. In a remarkable case, a murder victim named Chris Pelkey spoke to the court through a GenAI-created video avatar, made by his sister. Judges and lawyers are using tools like ChatGPT, LexisNexis Protege, and Thomson Reuters CoCounsel to research, draft, and save time. But there have also been mistakes — some lawyers were fined over $30,000 for submitting fake AI-generated case citations. Experts like Professor Daniel Linna from Northwestern Law say AI can help make justice faster and more accessible, but only if used carefully.

In India, the focus is on using AI responsibly. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has said that AI in law is the future — but it must be introduced with strong ethics and training. Institutions like IIT Madras’ Centre for Responsible AI (CeRAI) are working on making AI fair and accurate for the Indian legal system.

While the U.S. is experimenting with how far AI can go, India is carefully setting rules to make sure it is used safely and wisely. Together, both countries show how technology and justice can evolve — combining innovation, responsibility, and humanity in the age of AI.

19/09/2025

Inheritance rights aren’t one-size-fits-all. Under Hindu laws, inheritance depends on marriage validity, the type of relationship, and the nature of the property. From children of void/ voidable marriages to live-in partnerships, recent Supreme Court rulings ensure that legitimacy and justice prevail. Swipe to understand the laws, key sections, and landmark judgments shaping inheritance today.

08/09/2025

*SC: Article 226 Cannot Quash Chargesheet After Cognizance; Remedy Lies in S.528 BNSS*

The Supreme Court held that the scope of High Courts’ powers in quashing FIRs and charge-sheets under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC.

The Court held that before cognizance is taken by a Magistrate, High Courts may exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash an FIR or charge-sheet. However, once cognizance has been taken, Article 226 cannot be invoked. Instead, parties must seek relief under Section 528 BNSS, which empowers courts to quash not just the FIR or charge-sheet, but even the cognizance order—if proper pleadings are filed and a strong case is established.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a Bombay High Court order which had dismissed a writ petition as infructuous merely because a charge-sheet was filed during its pendency. The High Court had relied on Neeta Singh v. State of UP (2024), but the Supreme Court found this was a misapplication. Unlike Neeta Singh, where only Article 226 was invoked, the present petition also invoked Section 528 BNSS.

Holding that the Bombay HC erred, the Supreme Court revived the petition for fresh consideration.

02/09/2025

🚨 **Urgent Appeal for Flood Relief in Punjab** 🚨

M&A Law Offices is committed to standing with our people in this hour of need. We are mobilizing relief for families affected by the devastating floods in Punjab.

People on ground urgently need **commodities and essential necessities** for citizens stranded in flooded villages. All relief materials will be supplied to **Hemkunt Foundation** and **Khalsa Aid**, who are actively working on the ground.

🤝 Your contribution can make a real difference. Even the smallest help can bring hope to those who have lost everything.

📞 For contributions or further details, please contact:
**M&A Law Offices** – +918700451010

Let us come together and extend our support to those in distress. Together, we can help rebuild lives.

28/08/2025

🚨 *Supreme Court: A proprietorship has no separate legal identity from its owner. A suit against either the trade name or the proprietor is valid.*

The Supreme Court has clarified that there is no legal distinction between suing a proprietorship in its trade name and suing its proprietor directly, since a proprietorship has no independent legal identity apart from its owner. Setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s contrary ruling, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that a suit originally filed against a sole proprietorship and later amended to substitute the proprietor’s name remains valid. The Court explained that Order ### Rule 10 CPC permits, but does not mandate, that a proprietorship be sued in its trade name, as ultimately the proprietor alone represents and defends the concern. In the present case, where landlords sought eviction of “Aditya Motors,” a sole proprietorship, and subsequently substituted its proprietor Prasad as defendant, the Court held that no prejudice was caused by the amendment since the cause of action lay against the proprietor himself, who had executed the lease. Calling the High Court’s approach “hyper-technical,” the Court allowed the appeal, reiterating that impleading the proprietor sufficiently protects the concern’s interest.

22/07/2025

Registered Will Carries Presumption of Genuineness; Supreme Court Reinstates Widow’s Ownership Over Disputed Land

The Supreme Court on July 21 reaffirmed that a registered Will carries a strong presumption of genuineness, placing the burden of proof on the party contesting its validity. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled in favor of Lasum Bai, setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment that had limited her share in a 4-acre 16-gunta agricultural land. The Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the legitimacy of the registered Will and an oral family arrangement, both of which supported Lasum Bai’s claim to full ownership.

The dispute involved land originally owned by Metpalli Ramanna, which devolved to his son Rajanna. Rajanna’s Will, executed in 1974, divided the property among his legal heirs, including his second wife Lasum Bai. Rajanna’s son Muthaiah, from his first marriage, challenged the Will, claiming the land was ancestral and he was the sole heir.

However, the Court noted that Muthaiah had admitted the Will bore his father's signature and acknowledged the land division, reinforcing the oral settlement. Concluding that the trial court rightly upheld the Will and the oral family arrangement, the Supreme Court restored its verdict, declaring Lasum Bai the absolute owner of the property.

15/07/2025

*Spouse’s Secret Phone Recording Is Valid Evidence in Matrimonial Cases, Says Supreme Court*

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that secretly recorded telephonic conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial disputes. This decision overturns a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment which previously held that such recordings violated the wife’s fundamental right to privacy and were thus inadmissible.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which restricts disclosure of marital communications, includes an exception for legal proceedings between spouses. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be balanced against privacy claims.

Rejecting the High Court’s privacy concerns, the Supreme Court held that Section 122 does not recognize a general right to privacy and instead allows relevant evidence in matrimonial cases. It further dismissed arguments that admitting such evidence could harm domestic harmony, noting that surveillance between spouses is typically a symptom of an already broken relationship.

This judgment arose from a divorce case where a husband sought to use secretly recorded calls to prove cruelty. The Family Court had accepted the evidence, but the High Court had reversed the decision. The Supreme Court's ruling restores the admissibility of such evidence in family law proceedings.

M&A Law Offices

18/02/2026

09/02/2026

03/02/2026

30/01/2026

12/01/2026

13/10/2025

19/09/2025

08/09/2025

02/09/2025

28/08/2025

22/07/2025

15/07/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

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