Legal Experts India

10/02/2026

KIND ATTENTION PLEASE, HURRY UP:
‘Mediation For the Nation 2.0’ FOR THE RESOLUTION of pending cases--
The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court of India has launched a nationwide mediation campaign titled Mediation ‘For the Nation 2.0’, aimed at reducing the pendency of cases across courts in the country. The 90-day campaign seeks to promote amicable dispute resolution through mediation, offering litigants a faster, cost-effective, and mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged litigation. The campaign focuses on settling cases that are suitable for mediation, including matrimonial disputes, domestic violence cases, cheque bounce matters, motor accident claim cases, compoundable criminal cases, land acquisition disputes, partition and eviction cases, commercial disputes, service matters, labour law cases, contract disputes, consumer cases, and other suitable civil matters. As per the campaign guidelines, cases identified as suitable for mediation will be referred by the courts between January 2, 2026, and February 15, 2026, irrespective of their scheduled hearing dates. After notifying the parties, such cases will be transferred to court annexed mediation centres for settlement efforts. Mediation is a structured process in which disputing parties engage in dialogue under the guidance of a trained and impartial mediator. The mediator facilitates communication, encourages mutual understanding, and assists the parties in arriving at a voluntary and amicable settlement. Depending on the nature of the dispute, mediation sessions may be conducted jointly or separately.
Importantly, mediation services at court-annexed mediation centres are provided free of cost, with no fees charged to the parties. In cases successfully settled through mediation, the entire court fee paid is refunded. If mediation does not result in a settlement, or if parties decide to withdraw at any stage, the matter is returned to the court for continuation of judicial proceedings.

03/02/2026

As of 2025-2026, the law on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act in India has been strengthened to ensure faster, digital-friendly, and stricter resolution of cheque bounce cases. Key updates include a 2-year imprisonment penalty, potential fines up to double the cheque amount, and mandatory online payment options in summons. A legal notice must be sent to the drawer within 30 days of receiving information about the cheque bounce. The Court held that a complaint isn't defective if only partners are named, not the firm itself, as partners are directly liable and notice to them suffices. There is also Statutory Presumptions that in Sept. 2025 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that once cheque ex*****on is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise, restoring a conviction where the High Court had acquitted based on salary evidence.
# #

21/01/2026

Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Courts have only a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"/"Arbitration Act").
The Supreme Court observed that the power to modify can be exercised only in limited circumstances, for instance, when the offending portion of the award is severable, or to correct obvious clerical or computational errors, or to modify post-award interest. However, the Apex Court held that Courts cannot rewrite the award or re-evaluate the case on its merits, as doing so would amount to going beyond the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act. This was held in a case of Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508, (2025) 7 SCC 1
Wherein the majority, by a 4:1 verdict, held that Courts do possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act. The Supreme Court also observed and stated that this power arises from a purposive reading of the Act, particularly the proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv), which allows Courts to set aside only the offending parts of an award that are severable.
The majority reasoned that if Courts can strike down a part of an award, they can also modify it to correct severable and obvious errors, such as clerical or computational mistakes, patent illegality, or jurisdictional overreach. This, the Supreme Court said, was necessary to prevent unnecessary delays, repetitive proceedings, and inefficiencies caused by remitting cases back for fresh arbitration over minor defects. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that this power does not allow re-evaluation of facts or merits. It can only be used when the error is clear and self-contained. The majority added that such limited modification would not affect the international enforceability of awards under the New York Convention, as many jurisdictions, including Singapore and the UK, also permit similar modifications.
The dissenting opinion took a completely opposite view. It held that Section 34 gives Courts the power only to "set aside" an arbitral award, not to modify it. The dissent stated that the Act deliberately omitted the modification power that existed under Sections 15 and 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in order to reduce judicial interference and align with the UNCITRAL Model Law. Reintroducing this power by interpretation, it said, would amount to judicial legislation. The dissent also warned that a modified award may lose its character as an arbitral award under the New York Convention, affecting its enforceability abroad. The minority view reasoned that Courts cannot rewrite or improve upon the law for convenience. If powers to modify arbitral awards were genuinely considered necessary, Parliament must introduce them expressly.

01/01/2026

For MEDIATION professionals working and people interested to work as a Mediator-
Mediation is a part of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) including Arbitration, Conciliation, Negotiation which represent a global paradigm shift from confrontation to collaboration in the pursuit of justice.
In an era where judicial pendency has become a national concern, ADR offers a practical, time-saving, and humane alternative to litigation.
India’s approach to ADR is not merely a legal import — it is a revival of her own civilizational ethos rooted in dialogue, peace, and reconciliation.
As we know that Mediation is voluntary, confidential, and party-driven. It empowers disputants to resolve issues collaboratively with the guidance of a neutral mediator.
Unlike adjudication, it does not impose a verdict; it enables understanding.
In India with enactments of Mediation Act 2023 including formation of Mediation Council of India and other provisions, this Act institutionalizes mediation as a structured legal process.
But despite progress, challenges persist like shortage of trained mediators beyond metropolitan areas, limited public awareness and perceptional resistance among some legal practitioners.
The way forward demands institutional training, inclusion of mediation in law curricula, judicial encouragement, and greater reliance on digital mediation platforms.
I think, India should also ratify the Singapore Convention on Mediation, enhancing its global credibility in cross-border commercial disputes.

20/12/2025

LEGAL UPDATE:
The Allahabad High court has ruled that a married person can not legally enter into live-in relationships with a third party without first obtaining a decree of divorce from the first spouse. While making this observation the Hon’ble High court dismissed a writ petition seeking protection filed by a couple ln a live-in relationships.
Court also observed that no one has a right to intertin the personal liberty of the two adult not even the parent but right to freedomor right to personal liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right; it is qualified by some restriction also. The freedom of one person ends where the statutory right of another person starts.
If the person is already married and have their spouse alive, she/he cannot be legally permitted to enter into a live-in relationships with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse.

30/11/2025

POK IS PART OF INDIA SO TRADE ACROSS THE LINE OF CONTROL IS INTRA -STATE TRADE-
it is held by Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court that cross LOC trade between J&K and POK amout to i tra-state trade as POK is part of Stae of Jammu Kashmir. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said further that “since the part of area of J&K is presently under de facto control of Pakistan in fact is a part of State of Jammu-Kashmir.
Therefore, the location of supply and place of supply of goods are within the state of Jammu and Kashir (now UT) and therefore the cross LoC trade.. during the tax period in question was nothing but intra-staye trade”

26/11/2025

26/11/2025

05/11/2025

कार्तिक पूर्णिमा, गंगा स्नान एवं देव दीपावली की हार्दिक बधाई!
🙏🏼🙏🏼गुरू नानक देव जी के प्रकाश पर्व पर उन्हें कोटिशः नमन।
।वाहे गुरु।
जय माता दी 🙏🏻🚩

10/10/2025

Hon'ble Supreme Court yesterday held when a petitioner is a child at the time of commission of the offence and he having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law. Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and, hence, the benefit of release from detention ought to be extended to him and further directed to the jail authority to immediate release him/ to the petitioner.
For more detail please go through the judgement mentioned below-
Supreme Court of India
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 340 OF 2025,
HANSRAJ Vs STATE OF U.P.

Call now to connect with business.

21/08/2025

Supreme Court Advisory for Lawyers—
The Supreme Court has cautioned that even phone conversations with clients, including legal advice, can be treated as evidence in court and may lead to lawyers being summoned for trial.
It is strongly advised that sensitive legal discussions be held in chambers rather than on calls. This serves as a reminder of the importance of confidentiality and professional diligence in the practice of law.

फोन कॉल्स और वकीलों का समन—

1. फोन कॉल्स को साक्ष्य के रूप में इस्तेमाल किया जा सकता है

1 अगस्त 2025 को दिए गए एक निर्णय में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट की तीन-न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने यह स्पष्ट किया कि केवल पेशेवर हैसियत के कारण वकील जाँच से मुक्त नहीं हैं। कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा कि वकील और मुवक्किल के बीच होने वाली फोन पर बातचीत, उसकी सामग्री के आधार पर, आपराधिक मुकदमे के दौरान साक्ष्य के रूप में इस्तेमाल की जा सकती है। कोर्ट ने सलाह दी कि संवेदनशील कानूनी चर्चाएं फोन पर करने के बजाय चेंबर में आमने-सामने करना अधिक उचित है।
“यदि जांच के दौरान कोई भी आपत्तिजनक/दोषसिद्ध करने वाला सामग्री रिकॉर्ड पर आता है, चाहे वह वकील के खिलाफ ही क्यों न हो, तो कार्रवाई आगे बढ़ेगी। इसमें फोन पर हुई बातचीत भी शामिल है।”