Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Limited scope of jurisdiction of Court under i.e. at referral stage: Adjudication on merits by undertaking a detailed examination of factual matrix is not permissible, at referral stage, [Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 192]
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 — Ss. 2(1)(b), 3, 7, 9, 15, 22, 21, 21-A, 21-B and 21-C, Sch. I Pts. I, II, III and IV and Sch. II Pts. I, II and III — Expression “any Guidelines issued by the Council” in Sch. II Pt. II(1) — Ambit and interpretation: Cl. 6 of the impugned Guidelines dt. 8-8-2008 r/w ceiling limit on the number of tax audits under S. 44-AB of the IT Act, 1961 fixed by Council provided a ceiling limit of 60 tax audits per chartered accountant per year since Financial Year 2014- 2015 as per the decision taken by Council in its 331st meeting, constitutionally valid, [Shaji Poulose v. ICAI, (2025) 2 SCC 304]
Consumer Protection — Services — Housing and Real Estate — Possession — Delivery of possession — Delay — Compensation for delay: Computation of compensation for delay in terms of agreement i.e. at contractual rate, determined, [Santhosh Narasimha Murthy v. Mantri Castles (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 243]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Ss. 25, 24 and 13-B r/w Art. 142 of the Constitution — Permanent alimony and maintenance — Quantum of: Permanent alimony granted by court should not penalise husband but should ensure descent living of wife, [Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, (2025) 2 SCC 227]
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (60 of 1958) — Ss. 47 and 48 r/w Rr. 21 and 22-A of the Maharashtra Stamp Rules, 1939 — Stamp duty paid on unexecuted conveyance deed — Refund of: Period of expiry of limitation prescribed under any law may bar remedy but not right. Thus, appellant held entitled to claim refund of stamp duty amount on basis of fact that appellant had been pursuing her case as per remedies available to her in law, [Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2 SCC 201]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 168 r/w S. 2(30) — Compensation — Person(s) liable to pay — “Owner” — Who is — Determination of: “Owner” of a vehicle is not limited to the categories specified in S. 2(30) of the MV Act. Thus, if the context so requires, even a person at whose command or control the vehicle is, could be treated as its owner for the purposes of fixing tortious liability for payment of compensation, [Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 208]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — S. 19(1) — Power to arrest without warrant and without instituting criminal case: Compliance with pre-conditions under S. 19(1) PMLA for exercise of power to arrest without warrant by designated authority, mandatory. Concept and import of “reasons to believe” arrestee guilty of offence under PMLA, explained, [Arvind Kejriwal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2025) 2 SCC 248]