Your weekly dose of legal insights, industry trends, and research-driven updates
1. AI-Powered Future of Law: Legitquest Proudly Mentioned in Growth Report
India’s legal technology market is on a steep growth path, projected to nearly triple and cross $1.25 billion by 2030. The expansion is being fuelled by digital transformation, a need for faster processes and the rise of AI-driven solutions in law. LegalTech is no longer a niche space; it is fast becoming the backbone of an agile, transparent legal ecosystem from streamlining legal research to automating contracts and compliance. Legitquest is proud to share that our name was mentioned in this news article as one of the key innovators shaping this transformation. With our AI-powered research tools and focus on efficiency, we continue to be at the forefront of India’s LegalTech revolution, working to make justice more accessible and effective.
2. Delhi lawyers suspend strike after LG’s video-deposition order put on hold
Delhi district courts lawyers, a body representing about 1.65 lakh advocates, called off a six-day strike after the police said the operation of Lt-Governor V.K. Saxena’s August 13 notification which permits police to record and tender evidence via video from police stations will be put on hold pending stakeholder consultations. The bar had protested that virtual testimony from police stations could allow corrections and risk manipulation. The strike was suspended after a written assurance that the Union Home Minister will meet Bar representatives to discuss their concerns. Courts are expected to resume normal work while talks continue.
3. Supreme Court Upholds Taxpayer Rights, Cancels Case Against Businessman
The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against businessman Vijay Krishnaswami, pulling up the Income Tax Department for ignoring its own rules. The case stemmed from a 2016 search where authorities seized nearly ?5 crore. Despite the Settlement Commission granting immunity in 2019 after full disclosure of income officials pressed on with prosecution under Section 276C(1). The Court called this an “abuse of process” stressing that once the Commission settles a case prosecution cannot survive. It also imposed ?2 lakh costs on the Revenue and set aside the Madras High Court earlier refusal to interfere. The ruling reinforces that taxpayers cannot be harassed when statutory safeguards are in place.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/7093/7093_2024_2_1503_63690_Judgement_28-Aug-2025.pdf
4. Arunachal PSC row: Supreme Court gives clean chit to member
The Supreme Court has rejected an Article 317 move to remove Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission member Mepung Tadar Bage holding that no act of “misbehaviour” was proved. A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar delivered the report on August 28, 2025. The Court found the six charges vague and unsupported by evidence or any specific act or omission by Bage; it noted the inquiry report never personally indicted her. It also recorded that CBI investigations named a deputy official as primarily responsible for the 2022 AE (Civil) mains paper leak, not Bage. Recommending to the President the Court directed that Bage’s suspension be revoked “forthwith” with all consequential and monetary benefits.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/28613/28613_2023_2_1502_63690_Judgement_28-Aug-2025.pdf
5. SC overturns HC, restores eviction suit against Aditya Motors proprietor
The Supreme Court set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling that had dismissed an eviction suit on a technicality. The case involved Dogiparthi Venkata Satish the owner of leased property and Pilla Durga Prasad proprietor of Aditya Motors.The trial court had rejected Prasad’s bid to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the High Court allowed his revision holding that the proprietorship itself must be sued. The apex court disagreed, clarifying that a proprietorship is not a juristic person but only a trade name; the real party is always the proprietor.By restoring the suit, the Court emphasised that substance must prevail over hyper-technical objections ensuring proprietors cannot escape liability simply by invoking their firm’s trade name.
6. Court says simple quarrels should not be criminalised as child abuse
The Supreme Court gave relief to Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar who had been fighting charges since a 2013 school quarrel in Goa. The trial court had convicted him under IPC sections 323, 352, 504 and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, later partly reduced by the Bombay High Court. The apex court set aside his convictions under the Children’s Act and Section 504 IPC holding that hitting a child with a school bag during a scuffle does not amount to “child abuse” which requires cruelty or deliberate ill-treatment. The Court stressed that minor quarrels should not be criminalised under stringent child protection laws. Khajnekar’s convictions under IPC 323 (simple hurt) and 352 (assault) were upheld but instead of jail he was released on probation to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.
7. Legitquest Honored by The LegalTech Fund for Driving Litigation Innovation
We are proud to share that Legitquest has been featured in The LegalTech Fund’s 2025 Litigation Market Map a global recognition that highlights innovators transforming the future of litigation.This acknowledgment is a testament to our mission of revolutionizing legal research and litigation through technology driven solutions that empower efficiency, transparency and justice. Being listed alongside pioneering players in the legal tech ecosystem inspires us to further push boundaries and continue shaping a smarter, more accessible legal landscape. We extend our gratitude to The LegalTech Fund for this recognition and to our community for supporting us in this journey. Together we look forward to redefining the future of litigation with innovation and impact. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7328052233848201219
8. Gateway Terminals secures win on tax treatment of interest
Bombay High Court allowed Gateway Terminals’ appeal holding that interest earned on fixed deposits and on refunded TDS qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA because the funds were tied to the port business and not idle surplus. The company had parked about ?169 crore to meet a contractual obligation to replace cranes and to ring fence tariffs during a court dispute; interest on those deposits totalled ?8.68 crore. The Court found a direct nexus between those deposits and the eligible infrastructure business and reversed the ITAT rejection (the AO had earlier allowed the claim while the CIT(A) had sought to disallow it). The ruling clarifies that deposits kept out of business necessity and interest on delayed refunds of business receipts can fall within Section 80IA not “other sources.”