The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner.
By accessing this website, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Crux Law Partners of your own accord and that there has been no solicitation, advertisement, invitation or inducement by the Firm or any of its members.
The material on this website is provided solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Accessing this website, communicating with the Firm through it, or submitting an enquiry does not by itself create an advocate-client relationship.
You should obtain appropriate legal advice before acting or refraining from acting on the basis of any information available on this website.
A curated CRUX library of precedent and current legal developments, organised by practice and linked to Supreme Court of India primary sources for verification.
CRUX Insights is designed for serious reading: the holding, practical significance, a practitioner note and the underlying judgment source. The collection spans the firm’s principal practice areas and will evolve with the law.
CRUX Knowledge is organised to make legal developments useful: what the court decided, why the point matters, where it sits within the wider practice, and the source against which the proposition can be tested.
Focused treatment of significant judgments, with the holding and practical consequence separated from commentary.
Developments organised across the firm’s principal contentious, transactional, regulatory and private-client disciplines.
Underlying judgments remain accessible so the analysis can be read against the primary legal material.
A growing library designed to evolve with courts, legislation and the regulatory environment.
A cross-border transaction note on treaty protection, legal structure and the substance evidenced by the record.
Read featured case note →Selected analysis on issues shaping business, public law and disputes.
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT decisions after fake or hallucinated citations entered the adjudicatory process, and adopted a zero-tolerance approach to unverified AI-generated precedent.
The Court examined the treaty and statutory framework governing the transaction and the availability of treaty protection in a cross-border exit structure. The decision is significant for transaction structuring because tax consequences turn on the governing legal framework and the substance evidenced by the record, not labels alone.
The Supreme Court dealt with a long-running agreement-to-sell dispute and the plaintiff’s entitlement to specific performance, including the requirement of proving readiness and willingness. The Court declined to mechanically restore specific performance and moulded equitable relief on the proved record.
The Court reiterated that exercise of public power and allocation of public resources remain subject to constitutional discipline, fairness and transparency. In considering the plea for an independent investigation, it focused on legality, institutional confidence and the Article 14 character of State action.
The Supreme Court revisited the distinction between the juridical seat and the physical venue of arbitration when determining which court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over a challenge to the award.
In a large batch of land-acquisition appeals, the Court clarified the appellate route under Section 74 of the 2013 Act and held that the Limitation Act is not excluded. It also directed a pragmatic approach to condonation while emphasising administrative accountability for delay.
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the boundary between DRT jurisdiction and civil-court adjudication where antecedent title and the validity of underlying documents are in issue.
The Court examined whether the asserted transaction satisfied the statutory character of financial debt for a Section 7 proceeding and reiterated the distinction between insolvency resolution and using the Code as a mere recovery device.
The Supreme Court addressed prosecution under the NDPS Act in relation to psychotropic substances, the interaction between the Act and Rules, the effect of precedent, and the consequences of the legally operative charging framework.
The Court scrutinised the grant of bail against material circumstances including allegations of abscondence, threats to witnesses and the evidentiary record, reiterating that a bail order must demonstrate application of mind to factors relevant to the particular case.
In motor-accident compensation, the Supreme Court recognised the economic, managerial and caregiving contribution of a homemaker and addressed systemic delay in claims adjudication.
The Court interpreted the applicable pension rules and held that pending judicial proceedings operated as a bar to release of gratuity in the circumstances before it, notwithstanding the status of departmental proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the extended Section 74 route cannot be sustained by mechanically repeating expressions such as fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. The notice must contain foundational facts capable of supporting the statutory allegation; a protective demand cannot cure a limitation problem.
The Court revisited overall similarity, anti-dissection, dominant features, trade dress and equitable considerations governing interim relief in trade mark infringement and passing-off disputes.
The Supreme Court clarified the statutory sequence for redevelopment of a Slum Rehabilitation Area: the private landowner’s preferential right must be respected through notice and opportunity before acquisition can be pursued, while the scheme remains directed to rehabilitation of eligible occupants.
The Supreme Court considered the legal relationship between customs control and statutory port functions in a dispute concerning imported goods and liability arising from pilferage while the goods were within the customs area.
The Court examined revocation of probate, participation of persons claiming an interest in the estate, proof of the Will and suspicious circumstances under the succession and evidence framework.
Parliament's amending power is wide, but it does not extend to altering the basic structure or identity of the Constitution.
Tribunals may perform a specialised adjudicatory role, but they cannot exclude the constitutional judicial-review jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Article 21 is not satisfied by the mere existence of a procedure: the procedure affecting life or personal liberty must meet constitutional standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of judicial restraint, not a rigid jurisdictional prohibition.
An administrative or statutory order cannot ordinarily be improved later through fresh reasons supplied in affidavits or litigation.
Section 74 does not convert every contractual sum into an automatic windfall; compensation must remain legally supportable on the facts and the nature of the breach.
The CPC amendments and Section 89 framework were sustained with guidance aimed at effective case management, costs and alternative dispute resolution.
A court may facilitate ADR under Section 89, but reference to arbitration cannot be imposed without the legal basis and consent required for arbitration.
BALCO placed the territoriality principle at the centre of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and distinguished the legal significance of the seat from the physical venue.
At the referral stage the court generally conducts a prima-facie examination, leaving contested issues to the arbitral tribunal unless non-arbitrability is manifest.
The Group of Companies doctrine survives in Indian arbitration law, but its application is rooted in determining the parties' intention to be bound.
The legal character of a genuine corporate transaction cannot be displaced merely by looking through its form without the statutory and factual basis to do so.
Artificial or synchronised transactions capable of creating a misleading appearance of trading can attract securities-law consequences even where their mechanics appear formally matched.
Share issues, director conduct and allegations of oppression require close attention to purpose, fairness and the actual effect of corporate action.
The IBC's time-bound architecture and the binding nature of the resolution process leave no general power for unilateral withdrawal of a plan after CoC approval.
For a financial-creditor application, the adjudicating authority examines whether a financial debt exists and whether default has occurred within the statutory framework.
Section 9 is not a substitute for adjudicating a real commercial dispute: the tribunal asks whether a plausible pre-existing dispute exists, not whether the debtor will ultimately win it.
The Supreme Court substantially upheld the SARFAESI framework while invalidating the then-existing pre-deposit condition that operated as an oppressive barrier to challenge.
Where the recovery statute supplies an effective specialist remedy, High Courts should ordinarily insist that the statutory route be used before invoking Article 226.
The availability of a remedy under RERA does not by itself oust a homebuyer's statutory consumer remedy.
Planning law loses meaning if serious violations of sanctioned plans are routinely regularised after construction.
Contractual clauses drafted by a developer cannot be applied mechanically where delay, unfairness and the statutory consumer framework point to effective relief.
Unauthorised construction cannot be normalised through administrative inaction; planning authorities have continuing obligations to enforce sanctioned development.
Where construction is unauthorised, judicial discretion cannot be used to defeat the planning regime merely because demolition will cause hardship.
Development permission must comply with planning law, building regulations and the rights affected by the sanctioned plan; collusion cannot cure illegality.
The power to arrest under the PMLA carries procedural safeguards that must be meaningfully observed; an arrestee must be enabled to know the grounds on which liberty is taken away.
The Industrial Disputes Act looks to the character and organisation of the activity when deciding whether an undertaking falls within the statutory concept of an industry.
The substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confers coparcenary status on daughters by birth; the father's survival on the amendment date is not a condition for the right.
Section 65B governs proof of computer outputs and reinforces the need to preserve a legally verifiable source for electronic material.
