The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.verdictlegalsolutions.in, you acknowledge and confirm that:
You are seeking information relating to VERDICT LEGAL SOLUTIONS of your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement, or inducement by VERDICT LEGAL SOLUTIONS or its members.
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as solicitation or advertisement.
No material/information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice.
Any information obtained or downloaded by the user from this website does not create a client–attorney relationship between the Firm and the user.
VERDICT LEGAL SOLUTIONS shall not be liable for any consequences of actions taken by relying on the material/information provided on this website.
The contents of this website are the intellectual property of VERDICT LEGAL SOLUTIONS.
You acknowledge that your information will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
In a powerful reaffirmation of disability rights in the realm of professional education, the Supreme Court of India in Anmol v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387, directed the admission of a disabled candidate to an MBBS program under the PwD quota. The verdict marks a significant jurisprudential evolution under the […]
In a significant judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi Bench, has directed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to regularize the services of a casual labourer with temporary status, recognizing his long-standing service and rejecting the government’s argument based on a “phasing out” clause. Background The applicant,
In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 741), quashed criminal proceedings against a retired judicial officer accused of rape under the pretext of marriage. The Court emphasized the difference between a consensual relationship and one induced by fraud or coercion. Background The