PIL In Supreme Court Challenges Charges On UPI Merchant Payments Above ₹2,000
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the 0.4% charge on specified UPI merchant payments above ₹2,000. The petition, filed by Advocate Anjan Datta, challenges the September 14, 2026, Gazette notification issued under Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, as amended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2026.
Today, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's dismissal of former National Stock Exchange (NSE) MD & CEO Chitra Ramkrishna's plea challenging the CBI prosecution against her in the NSE co-location case. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that Ramkrishna's contention that NSE officials cannot be treated as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be raised before the trial court.
The Centre on Saturday told the Karnataka High Court that interpreting “spouse” to include same-sex partners under a provision of the Income Tax Act would indirectly recognise a same-sex matrimonial relationship, which is not recognised under Indian law. “Same-sex marriage is not a recognised marriage in the Indian context. So, if we understand spouse to mean same sex people, we indirectly recognise their matrimonial relationship. Therefore, spouse necessarily means husband and wife,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.
The Supreme court on Wednesday directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to take effective steps to ensure that NBFCs and Scheduled Commercial Banks actually comply with its recovery guidelines, observing that the Guidelines, Master Circulars and Clarifications issued over the years have “existed only on paper”. The direction came while allowing an appeal by Hari Dutta Sharma, whose commercial vehicle was repossessed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited after loan defaults.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment declaring Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unconstitutional. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stayed the High Court judgment until the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Government challenging the ruling. “The impugned order shall remain stayed on the condition that assessment as well as reassessment proceedings shall not proceed further till final disposal of the main matter. Notify this appeal for the final hearing on 3rd December.”, the court ordered
CBDT Circulars Reflect Executive's Understanding Of Law, Not Binding On Courts: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday held that CBDT circulars merely represent the Executive's understanding of a statutory provision and are not binding on the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The observation came while the court rejected an assessee's reliance on a CBDT Office Memorandum to claim a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act on premium received from the sale of export quotas
NCLT Delhi Directs Bira Beer Maker To Mediate With Creditors Over Insolvency Case Settlement
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has directed B9 Beverages Limited, the company behind the Bira 91 beer brand, its promoters, certain financial creditors, and applicants in connected insolvency proceedings to participate in a mediation meeting. The meeting is aimed at exploring a possible settlement. The order was passed in a Section 7 insolvency petition filed by Unity Small Finance Bank Limited against B9 Beverages.
Mere Pendency Of Criminal Proceedings Does Not Disqualify Resolution Applicant: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has ruled that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings or an investigation does not by itself make a prospective Resolution Applicant ineligible to submit a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Bombay Shaving Company on Wednesday agreed to take down an advertisement featuring a mock courtroom setting and a judge character after the Delhi High Court questioned the company over what it described as “outright mockery” of the court.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that government officers cannot be made personally liable for an unpaid arbitral award merely because they are responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of their department. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “The liability created by the award cannot, in execution, be converted into a personal monetary liability of an officer merely because such officer happens to be responsible for processing or arranging payment on behalf of the department.”