INTO LEGAL WORLD FOUNDATION

Can a country lose an argument in a Swiss courtroom, and then walk into a Singapore courtroom and make the exact same argument again, hoping for a different judge to say yes? The Republic of India tried exactly that. Having already asked the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, the court of the arbitration's seat, to tear up an award ordering it to compensate Deutsche Telekom AG over a cancelled satellite spectrum deal, and lost, India then asked Singapore's enforcement cour

A GNC executive deleted text messages during arbitration — yet Singapore's Court of Appeal enforced GNC's full $19M award and 54-store recovery anyway. Here's the 'impermissible hedging' trap that sank the franchisee's defence.

Tata Power tried to overturn a $490 million arbitration award in Singapore's top court on grounds of natural justice and arbitrator bias. Here's why every ground failed — and what it means for arbitration lawyers in India.

Joseph Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78 and 74 on five IQ tests across three decades, never once below 70. The Supreme Court still let his death sentence stay vacated, and Justice Alito calls the reasoning statistically indefensible.

163,148 piracy notices. 6 million subscribers. A $1 billion jury verdict. On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States looked at all three numbers and ruled that none of them made Cox Communications liable for a single dollar of Sony's copyright infringement. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171, is now the most important copyright ruling for internet service providers in a generation, and it turns on a distinction most people miss: kn

A Missouri jury heard John Durnell describe two decades of spraying Roundup on his property. They heard he later developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They awarded him more than $1 million. On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States wiped that verdict off the map, and with it, potentially thousands of similar lawsuits pending against Monsanto across the country. The decision, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, did not turn on whether glyphosate actually causes ca

On August 20, 2025, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency posted a letter online accusing Lisa Cook, a sitting Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, of mortgage fraud. Within thirty minutes, President Trump posted on social media: "Cook must resign, now!!!" Three days later, he fired her. It was the first time in the Federal Reserve's 111-year history that a sitting President had removed a Governor. Cook sued that same week, and what followed became one of the m

Imagine a court telling you, to your face, that you have no legal case, and then spending eighteen months engineering a rescue for you anyway. That is exactly what happened in Bhilai Education Trust vs Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors., SLP (C) No. 14462/2022, a case that is less about property law and more about how far the Supreme Court will bend it when 1,700 schoolchildren are standing on the other side of the ledger. The Case in One Line Bhilai Education Trust runs a school on 1

A toddler goes missing for less than an hour. A neighbour is seen bringing her back from a park. Hours later, her mother says she found blood on the child's clothes. A trial court believes her, and sentences the neighbour to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act. Nine years later, the Supreme Court has thrown out the entire conviction, and not on a technicality. It found that almost every fact the case was built on turned out to be either contradicted or disp

Ask any employee who has spent years "officiating" on a higher post whether that counts for something, and the answer feels obvious: of course it does. On 17 September 2026, the Supreme Court said it very much depends on the word doing the work in that sentence — and for a batch of BSNL Hindi Translators who had waited decades for a formal promotion, the answer turned out to be no. In The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. G.N. Mani Ravinder and Others (2026 INSC 100

Sunita Lahu Panchpande did not lie on her application. She did not forge a certificate, misstate her experience, or hide a disqualifying fact. She relied on a written clarification issued by a senior government officer — the Divisional Commissioner of Nashik himself — who told the recruiting authority that her appointment could go ahead. She then worked the post of Anganwadi Supervisor for three years without a single complaint against her performance. On 16th September 2026,

In 2015, a government-appointed committee told the Ministry of Defence to stop fighting its own disabled soldiers in court. The Ministry formally accepted that recommendation in 2018. Eleven years after the committee's report, the Supreme Court had to make the same point again — this time from the bench, while dismissing 271 more appeals the government had filed anyway. On 15 September 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe disposed of

A two-wheeler rider in Tirupati filed his accident compensation claim in Chennai, the city where he lived and worked, and where the insurance company also happened to have an office. On paper that looked like a perfectly reasonable choice of venue. The Supreme Court has now told him, and every claimant tempted to reason the same way, that it was not. The Accident, and the Venue Fight That Outlasted It On 25 October 2022, K Rashik was riding his two-wheeler with his brother as

A government recruitment list is only as strong as the paperwork behind it. In this case, roughly five hundred selected candidates could not be matched to a certificate on record, and the Supreme Court still refused to send the matter to the CBI. The Case in One Line On 16 September 2026, a two judge Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed a writ petition that had been pending for thirteen years. The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates

1:00 a.m., Ayodhya. A truck sits parked under CCTV cameras outside a godown. Four men break its steering lock and drive it away into the dark. No notice. No warning. No one in uniform. The owner runs to the police the same night and files a report for theft. Five months later, he finds out it wasn't theft. It was his own financier. That's the opening scene of Hari Dutta Sharma vs State of U.P. & Ors. (2026 INSC 998), decided by the Supreme Court on 16 September 2026. A truck

In a judgment delivered on 16 September 2026, the Supreme Court of India acquitted a former Railway Protection Force (RPF) officer who had been convicted twice for demanding and accepting bribes through subordinate intermediaries — convictions that both the trial court and the Kerala High Court had upheld. The ruling in Bharat Raj Meena vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2026 INSC 999) turns on a question that troubles almost every corruption prosecution built around middlem

In 2005, the Income Tax Department raided Omaxe Limited's offices. In 2007, Omaxe itself walked into the Income Tax Settlement Commission and offered to pay up. In 2008, the Commission settled the matter and closed the file. In 2009, a fresh survey turned up internal minutes suggesting Omaxe's own executives had discussed structuring commercial space across group companies specifically to keep claiming a tax deduction they may not have been entitled to. The Department reopene

On 29th November 2004, an Inspector in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, stopped two men near Bandariya Tiraha and recovered black, wick-shaped material from the bags they were carrying. It was suspected to be charas. Abdul Rajik was found with 1 kilogram of it. Govind was found with 800 grams. Both were arrested, chargesheeted, tried, convicted and sentenced to eight and ten years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction in 2010. On 16

Bombay High Court quashes FIR against former Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer, holding Section 26 of the SEBI Act bars police-initiated prosecution for front running; only SEBI can file the complaint.

On September 14, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP, the master licensee of the VIMAL Elaichi brand, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai to its three brand ambassadors, Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, since the entire cause of action had