LawLoveLegal

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a parent working from home (WFH) cannot automatically be considered more suitable for child custody than a parent who physically travels to work. In a significant judgment addressing the realities of modern working families, the Court held that the welfare of the child—not parental work arrangements—is the paramount consideration in custody disputes. Contemporary Context: Hybrid Work Culture and Custody Claims The ruling comes amid rising reliance on remote and hybrid work models, where many litigants argue that being physically present at home enhances their caregiving ability. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against such simplified assumptions. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that in the current socio-economic environment, both parents frequently work to provide economic stability , and physical presence at home does not necessarily translate into availability, emotional nurturing, or superior careg...

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent landmark judgment, has reaffirmed the interpretation of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , holding that a person who goes missing cannot be presumed dead on the date of disappearance. The presumption of death, according to law, arises only after the expiry of seven years , unless concrete evidence proves an earlier date of death. Facts of the Case The case originated from an appeal filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation against a Bombay High Court ruling that directed it to grant compassionate employment to the son of an employee, Gulab Mahagu Bawankule , who had gone missing on September 1, 2012 . The High Court had erroneously treated the date of disappearance as the date of death, thereby ordering compassionate appointment to the missing employee’s son. However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale , found this reasoning legally flawed. The Court clarified that, in the absence of proof regard...

When Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) sell property in India, they are liable to pay capital gains tax under Indian law. However, taxation doesn’t end there — the gains may also be subject to tax in their country of residence such as the United States, the United Kingdom, or Singapore . This makes it essential to understand how Indian tax law, international tax treaties (DTAAs), and constitutional safeguards work together. 1. Statutory Framework Governing Property Sale and Capital Gains a. Income Tax Act, 1961 The taxation of property sale by NRIs in India is primarily governed by the Income Tax Act, 1961 . Section 45 : Imposes tax on capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset. Section 48 : Provides for indexation of the cost of acquisition to adjust for inflation. Section 195 : Mandates Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on payments made to NRIs for property transactions. Section 90 : Grants relief from double taxation through the Double Taxation Avoidance ...

1. Background of the Incident The Delhi Police recently arrested a 19-year-old Class 12 dropout, Aman, from Hisar, Haryana, for allegedly duping multiple individuals by offering heavily discounted iPhones through fake social media pages. Acting on digital trail evidence, the police traced his mobile number to his village and apprehended him through a late-night raid. According to the investigation, Aman had learned online fraud techniques from local cybercriminals. To conceal the proceeds of fraud, he transferred the money through multiple bank accounts. Victims were lured using manipulated images, forged screenshots of previous deliveries, and UPI payment links that appeared legitimate. One complainant stated that he made 29 UPI transactions totalling ₹65,782 , after being persuaded with false explanations regarding shipping and tax charges. No product was delivered, and communication was blocked afterward. The police have so far identified at least eight similar complaints , and...

Introduction India’s rich built heritage—palaces, forts, colonial mansions, temples, ghats—is under serious stress from neglect, institutional fragmentation and inadequate funding. As you outline, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and adaptive reuse have emerged as a possible route to reviving this heritage. The question arises: can the government mandate that eligible companies direct their statutory CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) obligations under the Companies Act 2013 towards heritage revival projects? This article examines the statutory CSR regime, constitutional and jurisprudential constraints, and the feasibility of directing CSR funds specifically to heritage preservation. The CSR Regime in India – Statute and Rules Applicability and key features Under section 135(1) of the Companies Act 2013, every company which, in the preceding financial year, satisfies any of the following criteria must comply with CSR obligations: net worth of ₹500 crore or more, or turnover ...