Courts Financial News

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories.For almost six years, Argentines have demanded the truth about the mysterious death of their tragic national hero, Diego Maradona, among the greatest soccer players the world has ever seen.Now, prosecutors say they have an answer and are putting their evidence to the test this week in a trial accusing Maradona’s medical team of “simple homicide with eventual intent,” meaning that their actions contributed to his death. Seven defendants, including Maradona’s doctor and nurses and a psychiatrist, face as many as 25 years in prison.Prosecutors alleged that Maradona’s medical team ignored significant warning signs as his health deteriorated in late 2020.

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories.The Trump administration is expected to start accepting claims next week for refunds from the tariffs President Trump collected illegally.In an order Tuesday, Judge Richard Eaton of the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade said the government confirmed in a closed conference earlier in the day that it is on track to begin processing claims for refunds with interest on April 20 for some importers.The refund claims that the government said it can start accepting amount to about $127 billion of the $166 billion the government collected in tariffs that were invalidated by the Supreme Court in February, Eaton said.U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been working to build a system to handle refunds after Eaton directed it to immediately begin the repayment process on March 4, but he ultimately gave the Trump administration more time after it said its current system wasn’t capable of reimbursing for more than 53 million imports that were affected by Trump’s tariffs.More than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed at the trade court by companies seeking a refund.

Mint and confirmed by two officials.According to the direction issued as part of the Mediation for Nation 2.0 campaign, state chief secretaries have been asked to actively support efforts to identify and dispose of cases that can be settled through mediation, the government officials cited earlier said, adding that the cases where the state is a complainant can be resolved through settlement.The emphasis is on disputes that are legally compoundable—cases that can be resolved mutually, including cheque bounce cases, land acquisition matters and certain criminal offences, the officials said on the condition of anonymity.The move assumes significance as cheque dishonour cases have been identified as a key focus area due to their sheer volume. As per government data, over 8.007 million cheque bounce cases are pending across high courts.

NEW DELHI: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) promises a fresh start for bankrupt companies that have resolved their debt problems. Yet, creditors including government agencies come after them for their past dues – a headache for the company’s new investors.

Earlier this month, when the Gujarat high court and Punjab and Haryana high court barred judicial officers from using artificial intelligence (AI) for drafting judgements or doing legal research, they set out a clear framework for governing AI in high-stake settings. Judges and court staff are prohibited not only from using AI to decide cases, but also from drafting orders, evaluating evidence or assisting them in judicial reasoning.The Kerala high court took a similar stance in 2025. India’s Supreme Court has also kept AI away from the sphere of legal logic.

India’s first class action suit has hit an unexpected hurdle: Ankit Jain, the lead minority shareholder in the ₹2,500-crore siphoning case against Jindal Poly Films, is looking to walk away. Having sold his shares in the company, Jain, who previously represented a 4.99% minority stake alongside other petitioners, has now moved to exit the landmark legal battle.Jain’s legal team informed the Delhi principal bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Thursday that he had divested his entire shareholding and no longer had the legal standing to appear as a petitioner leading the class action.

In a crucial ruling for the banking sector, the Supreme Court clarified that banks are not required to provide borrowers a personal or oral hearing before classifying their accounts as fraudulent. On Tuesday, the court held that a written process is enough to satisfy principles of natural justice.Mint explains the case, the ruling, and what it means for fraud detection by banks and for borrowers.The case before a two-person Supreme Court bench arose from appeals filed by banks, including State Bank of India and Bank of India, against orders of the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts.

Mint takes a look at the arguments made by the high-profile Adani counsels and the road ahead in the case.The SEC has alleged that billionaire businessman Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, among others, paid $250 million in bribes to unnamed government officials in India to secure favourable power-supply contracts for Adani Green Energy Ltd.The regulators further claimed that when raising capital from American investors, the Adanis did not tell them about the alleged bribes while stating the company’s anti-bribery policies, thus misleading investors and committing securities fraud.The Adani Group has denied any wrongdoing.The Adani lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the SEC case based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. The Adani kin are neither residents of the United States nor did they purposefully direct their activities towards the country, the counsels said in their motion.Gautam Adani did not personally authorize the issuance of the $750 million bonds under question or direct the sale of these bonds in the US, they said.

Srinivasan on 2 April. Notably, this was a day before Mistry sought a probe by the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner, highlighting the restrictive clauses. Mint has seen Sharma's letter to all 11 trustees of Tata Trusts where he sought to clarify his position.“I was also informed that Mr.

On 30 March, the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) published draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021, which, if passed, will have far-reaching consequences for internet users in India. While each of the three primary amendment proposals does something different, together they will transform the internet from a rules-based regime into one governed by discretion.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has given a clean chit to nine whole-time directors (WTDs) of various public sector banks, saying there were no adverse findings against them, two people aware of the development told Mint.Those cleared include Nidhhu Saxena (MD & CEO, Bank of Maharashtra), Bhavendra Kumar (executive director, Canara Bank), Mahendra Dohare (executive director, Central Bank of India), Bijay Baran Singh (executive director, Indian Bank), Ravi Mehra (executive director, Punjab & Sind Bank), and Vijaykumar Nivruti Kamble (executive director, UCO Bank), one of the people cited above said.A second person added that Rajiv Mishra (executive director, Bank of India), Brajesh Kumar Singh (executive director, Indian Bank), and Dhanraj T (executive director, Indian Overseas Bank) had also received clearance from the CVC.The development is significant as it comes at a time when the government has tightened oversight of board-level appointments in public sector banks following recent lapses and controversies related to vigilance disclosures. The clearances are seen as a critical filtering exercise amid heightened scrutiny of senior appointments.The move also comes against the backdrop of an unusual and high-profile action last year, in which the Centre demoted Union Bank of India Executive Director Pankaj Dwivedi to general manager at Punjab & Sind Bank.

India’s proposed amendments of its IT Rules may read at first glance as a technical tightening of platform obligations. The government has described them as “clarificatory and procedural,” intended to improve legal certainty, strengthen enforceability and ensure more effective oversight of content hosted by online intermediaries, particularly news and current affairs.A closer reading, however, suggests that government ‘advisories,’ ‘guidelines’ and ‘clarifications’ could effectively become binding.

9th Mint India Investment Summit in Mumbai last week. Panellists, including senior in-house legal counsels and law firm partners, said weak enforcement sits at the heart of the problem, raising the cost of doing business and deterring investment.The inability to enforce contracts swiftly and predictably, along with delays, frequent adjournments, procedural hurdles and lack of subject-matter expertise, creates friction for companies and investors.

₹10,000 crore in adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues to the government by 31 March, according to two people familiar with the matter, even as the telecom operator presses for a recalculation of its liabilities on par with Vodafone Idea.This marks the first tranche of payments after a four-year moratorium ended in September 2025, with instalment schedule beginning March 2026.“The company will need to make this AGR dues payment, which includes licence fee and spectrum usage charges (SUC),” one of the people cited above said, seeking anonymity. “At ₹10,000 crore, this payment would be just one-fifth of the total AGR dues of the company,” the person said, adding that the company is taking up the re-calculation of the dues issue separately.Bharti Airtel’s deferred payment liability towards AGR was at ₹38,604 crore, according to its FY25 annual report.

Write to Jason Douglas at [email protected] and Junko Fukutome at [email protected] all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint.

When it comes to punishments levied against Meta and Google over the years, $6 million for claims that their apps were addictive and caused a mental health crisis might not seem like much. The amount, which a Los Angeles jury on Wednesday ordered to be paid to a 20-year-old woman known as Kaley G.M., is a mere pittance when compared with a $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission for Meta or a $3.5 billion penalty for Google from the European Union.But that would be the wrong way to look at this pivotal moment in big tech accountability.

Mint explains.On Wednesday, the California Superior Court held that Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, and Google, which owns YouTube, deliberately built features that foster prolonged, compulsive use among children, contributing to mental distress and long-term harm.The court flagged infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations as core drivers of “addiction by design,” drawing parallels with tobacco companies. Both firms have disputed the verdict.Unlikely.

₹29,000-crore liability for unsettled cases.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reaffirmed that landowners whose land was acquired for highway projects between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to extra compensation, known as solatium, and interest, even for past acquisitions.The apex court maintained that financial implications of the judgment, estimated at around ₹29,000-crore by the NHAI—cannot be a ground to deny fair compensation to landowners.“The grant of solatium and interest cannot be made contingent upon the magnitude of the financial burden. The Constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be diluted on that basis.

Mint. Mint also saw a copy of the order released on Tuesday.Ashish Brijkishore Singh, a 42-year-old insurance advisor, filed the first information report (FIR) against Gupta and Khandelwal on 16 March after he and two of his aides were duped by a group of six individuals of ₹71.6 lakh.

The randomness of Donald Trump’s tariffs has underscored that a state of flux for businesses is the only constant. That this has been inflicted by one of the chief architects of the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s rules of global trade is ironic, as it has left us with this mockery of a rules-based order.Last April, the US President alleged that foreign trade and economic practices had created a national emergency and imposed tariffs across imports from all countries. Ten months later, the US Supreme Court ruled that they were unlawful.

The US government’s trade lawyers are working overtime. So what if the work in question requires more imagination than it does expertise?Over the past fortnight, investigations into 16 countries for supposed manufacturing “excess capacity” have been launched under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The office of US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer also announced that similar probes would begin into forced labour practices in 60 countries.