Updates

Can reassessment proceed without issuing a mandatory Section 143(2) notice?

Notice Under Section 143(2) Is Mandatory for Reassessment Proceedings

Case: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd.Citation: 2026 INSC 1171Decided on: October 28, 2026

What this case means

The case concerned whether the Revenue could proceed with income tax reassessment without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court held that such a notice is a sine qua non and cannot be dispensed with regardless of the assessee's participation. Section 292BB cannot save cases where no notice was issued at all.

“The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for reassessment and cannot be dispensed with by the assessee's participation or Section 292BB.”

Share:

Story Slides

Case at a glance1 / 6

Supreme Court of India

Section 143(2) Notice: Mandatory, Not Curable

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. | 2026 INSC 1171

Court: Supreme Court of India; Date: October 28, 2026Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev SachdevaArea of law: Income Tax / Reassessment ProceedingsAssessment years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. · 2026 INSC 1171October 28, 2026
The legal question2 / 6

Can the Revenue Skip the Section 143(2) Notice in Reassessment?

Three legal questions decided by the Court

  • Appellant: Section 292BB bars objection to notice since assessee participated in proceedings.
  • Appellant: Assessee's request to treat Section 139 return as Section 148 return removes need for Section 143(2) notice.
  • Appellant: A Section 142(1) letter during proceedings equals compliance with Section 143(2).
  • Respondent: Non-issuance of Section 143(2) notice is not a curable defect and vitiates reassessment entirely.
  • Respondent: Section 292BB applies only to defects in service of a notice that was actually sent, not to complete non-issuance.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. · 2026 INSC 1171October 28, 2026
Statutory comparison3 / 6

Section 143(2) vs. Section 292BB: Scope Compared

What each provision does and how the Court applied them

ProvisionWhat it saysHow the Court applied it
Section 143(2)Mandates notice to assessee before reassessment assessmentHeld mandatory and sine qua non; non-issuance vitiates entire proceedings
Section 292BBDeems notice duly served if assessee appeared/cooperatedApplies only when notice was sent but had service defects; not when no notice issued at all
Section 142(1)Enables Assessing Officer to call for documents during inquiryCannot substitute for Section 143(2) notice; different purpose and stage
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. · 2026 INSC 1171October 28, 2026
The Court's reasoning4 / 6

Court's Reasoning: Step by Step

From the legal question to the final conclusion

  1. 1Step 1: Section 143(2) notice is mandatory; its omission is not a curable procedural irregularity (Hotel Blue Moon).
  2. 2Step 2: Section 292BB deeming fiction operates only when Revenue claims notice was sent; inapplicable where notice was never issued.
  3. 3Step 3: Assessee's participation in proceedings does not confer jurisdiction on Assessing Officer absent Section 143(2) notice.
  4. 4Step 4: Assessee's choice to rely on earlier Section 139 return does not relieve Revenue of Section 143(2) obligation.
  5. 5Step 5: A Section 142(1) letter cannot substitute for a Section 143(2) notice; proceedings vitiated, appeals dismissed.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. · 2026 INSC 1171October 28, 2026
The verdict5 / 6

Verdict: Revenue Appeals Dismissed

  • The Fact: Revenue conducted reassessment without issuing mandatory Section 143(2) notice for multiple assessment years.
  • The Law: Section 143(2) notice is sine qua non; Section 292BB cannot save complete non-issuance; Section 142(1) letter is no substitute.
  • The Result: ITAT and High Court orders affirmed; all Revenue appeals dismissed; reassessment proceedings held vitiated.
All Revenue appeals dismissed; reassessment proceedings vitiated for want of mandatory Section 143(2) notice.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. · 2026 INSC 1171October 28, 2026
Why it matters6 / 6

What This Means for Taxpayers

  • You must always receive a Section 143(2) notice before the Revenue can proceed with reassessment.
  • Participating in reassessment proceedings does not mean you lose the right to challenge missing notices.
  • If you rely on your earlier filed return, the Revenue still cannot skip the Section 143(2) notice.
  • A document request letter under Section 142(1) is not a substitute for the mandatory Section 143(2) notice.
No Section 143(2) notice means no valid reassessment — the Revenue cannot skip this step, ever.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. · 2026 INSC 1171October 28, 2026

At a glance (infographic)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. — infographic summary
Download infographic

In short

The Supreme Court of India decided a batch of civil appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar, against Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Bijoy Kishore Mohanty, relating to reassessment proceedings for multiple assessment years between 2008-09 and 2011-12. In each case, original returns had been filed under Section 139 and assessed under Section 143(3). The Revenue later sought to reopen the assessments under Section 147 and issued notices under Section 148. The assessees either refiled or asked that their earlier returns be treated as returns in response to the Section 148 notice. Crucially, no notice under Section 143(2) was issued before commencing reassessment. The Revenue argued that the assessees had participated in proceedings, and therefore Section 292BB precluded them from raising the objection of non-service of notice. The Revenue also argued that a letter issued under Section 142(1) during proceedings was sufficient compliance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Court both ruled against the Revenue. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions. It held that Section 292BB is a deeming fiction applicable only when the Revenue claims a notice was sent but there were defects in its service. Where the Revenue itself admits no notice was issued, Section 292BB has no applicability. Relying on its earlier decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 3 SCC 259 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2021) 18 SCC 691, the Court reiterated that failure to issue a Section 143(2) notice is not a curable procedural irregularity, vitiates the entire reassessment, and a Section 142(1) letter cannot substitute for it. All appeals were dismissed.

Need clarity on a similar legal issue?

Request free pro bono guidance from a Supreme Court Advocate.

Request Guidance

Background

The Revenue reopened completed income tax assessments of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Bijoy Kishore Mohanty for assessment years between 2008-09 and 2011-12 by issuing notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees did not file fresh returns but asked that their earlier returns under Section 139 be treated as returns in response to the Section 148 notice. The Revenue then commenced reassessment proceedings issuing notices under Section 142(1) but never issued the mandatory notice under Section 143(2).

The Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed all the Revenue's appeals and affirmed the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. It held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and its non-issuance vitiates the reassessment proceedings entirely. Section 292BB does not apply where the Revenue itself admits no notice was issued, and a Section 142(1) letter cannot substitute for a Section 143(2) notice.

Why it matters for you

This judgment protects taxpayers from reassessment proceedings that skip the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), ensuring they always get an opportunity to present evidence. It clarifies that merely participating in proceedings does not waive the right to challenge non-issuance of such a notice. It also prevents the Revenue from using Section 292BB as a shield where it never even sent the required notice.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Key Acts and sections cited or relied upon in this judgment

“Mandates the Assessing Officer to serve a notice on the assessee requiring attendance or production of evidence before making an assessment; the Court held it is a sine qua non for reassessment proceedings and its omission is not a curable procedural irregularity.”
“Creates a deeming fiction that notice is deemed duly served if the assessee appeared or cooperated, precluding objections as to service; the Court held it applies only when a notice was actually sent and cannot save cases of complete non-issuance of notice.”
“Empowers the Assessing Officer to make an assessment order after hearing evidence pursuant to a notice under Section 143(2); the Court held no assessment can be framed under this section without a prior Section 143(2) notice.”
“Section 147 provides for reopening of assessments and Section 148 requires issue of notice to the assessee to file a return; the Court held that even after a Section 148 notice, the obligation to issue a Section 143(2) notice before reassessment is not dispensed with.”
“Enables the Assessing Officer to require an assessee to produce accounts, documents or information before assessment; the Court held that a letter under Section 142(1) cannot substitute or satisfy the mandatory requirement of a notice under Section 143(2).”
“Provides for filing of return of income; the Court held that an assessee's request to treat the original Section 139 return as the return in response to a Section 148 notice does not absolve the Revenue of its obligation to issue a Section 143(2) notice.”

Full text of the judgment

Text extracted from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneshwar vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd.. For the authoritative version refer to the Supreme Court of India's official website.

2026 INSC 1171 1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO………….OF 2026 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 14546 OF 2023) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESHWAR ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No…….. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.25931 of 2026)

Civil Appeal No…….. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.25932 of 2026)

Civil Appeal No…….. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.3350 of 2024)

Civil Appeal No…….. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.25882 of 2026)

J U D G M E N T SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. As similar issues arise in all these appeals, and as such they have been taken up for consideration together. Revenue has assailed different orders Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.10.28 18:51:02 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

holding against the Revenue. Insofar as the respondent, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. is concerned, the assessment years involved are 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Whereas in the case of respondent, Bijoy Kishore Mohanty, the assessment years involved are in the 2009-10 and 2010-11. 3. Common questions of law arising for consideration in all these appeals are: (i) Whether Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 19611 precludes an Assessee from raising an objection in any proceedings under the Act regarding non-service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, if the Assessee had appeared and cooperated during the reassessment proceedings and had not raised any objection with regard to non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act? and (ii) Whether an Assessee who requests that the earlier Return of Income filed under Section 139 of the Act be treated as the Return of Income filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act is not required to be given a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act?, and (iii) Whether a letter given by the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings, requiring the Assessee to explain the grounds on which re-assessment of income was proposed, would tantamount to sufficient compliance of the provision of

1 ‘The Act’ for short

Section 143(2) of the Act? 4. In all these appeals, the Assessees had filed the respective Returns of their Income for the respective Assessment years under Section 139 of the Act, which were duly assessed, and assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessments under Section 147 of the Act and issued notices under Section 148 of the Act, requiring the assesses to file the returns in the prescribed form. 5. In the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., the Assessee filed a response stating that its Return of Income originally filed under Section 139 of the Act, be treated as the Return of Income in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. In the case of Bijoy Kishore Mohanty, it is stated that the same Return of Income which had earlier been filed under Section 139 of the Act, was refiled in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. Thereafter, admittedly no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the reassessment proceedings were commenced. During the reassessment proceedings, and notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee, seeking documents/stock information to be submitted. 7. Pursuant thereto, the reassessment orders were framed against the

Assessees, which were challenged by the Assessees by approaching the Appellate Authority, i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). One of the grounds raised by the Assessee before the Appellate Authority was with regard to failure of the Revenue to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. 8. Appellate Authority rejected the argument of the Assessee with regards to vitiation of the proceedings on account of failure of the Revenue to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Appellate Authority held that since the Assessees had participated in the assessment proceedings after the issuance of a notice under Section 148, followed by a notice under Section 142(1), the Assessees could not be allowed to raise the ground of non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act at the appellate stage. 9. Aggrieved therefrom, the Assesses approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the respective cases, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings stood vitiated for want of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and, thus, set aside the reassessment orders. 10. Aggrieved by the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue challenged the respective orders before the High Court. The High Court had rejected the challenge, and upheld the orders of Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, confirming that the assessment proceedings were vitiated on the ground of failure of the authority to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 11. Section 143 of the Act reads as under: “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — ******* (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the Assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the Assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the Assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the Assessee after the expiry of three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. (3) On the day specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the Assessee may produce and such other evidence as the

Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the Assessee, and determine the sum payable by him or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment: Provided that ******** (4) ******” 12. Section 143(2) of the Act mandates service of a notice on the Assessee, requiring him to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the Assessee may rely in support of the return. This Court, in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another vs. Hotel Blue Moon2 has held that the omission on the part of the Assessing Authority to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the act cannot be treated as a procedural irregularity that is curable, and therefore, the requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act cannot be dispensed with. 13. This Court, in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) has specifically laid down that where the Assessing Officer intends to make an enquiry, he must necessarily follow the provisions of Section 142 and Section 143(2) & 143(3) of the Act.

2 (2010) 3 SCC 259

A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory, as it grants the Assessee an opportunity to produce or cause to be produced any evidence or particulars based on which the Assessee claims relief. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act is sine qua non for a proceeding for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. In the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, no further proceedings can be undertaken by the Revenue. 14. In the present case, admittedly no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was admittedly issued. The excuse given by the Revenue is that such a notice was not required to be given and failure to give such a notice is not fatal to the reassessment proceedings. Reliance is placed by the Revenue on the provision of Section 292BB of the Act, which reads as under:- “292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances. Where an Assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such Assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act that the notice was— (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or

(c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the Assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.” 15. Section 292BB creates a deeming fiction in respect of any proceedings in which an Assessee had appeared or an inquiry in which the Assessee cooperated relating to assessment or reassessment. The deeming fiction stipulates that any notice required to be served upon the Assessee, under the provision of the Act, shall be deemed to have been duly served upon him in time and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the Assessee is precluded from taking any objection that the notice was either not served upon him, or not served upon him in time, or served upon him in an improper manner. Said provision precludes an Assessee from raising an objection with regards to service, timely service and proper service of a notice which is required to be served upon him. Such a deeming fiction can come into play only if notice is alleged to have been sent by the Revenue. 16. Only when the Revenue contends that a notice, as required under the Act has been sent, the Assessee who has participated in the proceedings or inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, pursuant to the notice would be precluded from taking any objection that the notice was not served upon him, or was not served in time, or that the service of notice was not proper.

Said deeming fiction cannot come into play where the Revenue has admittedly not even issued the notice. Where the Revenue itself contends that no notice was sent, as required under the Act, the provision of Section 292BB will have no applicability. 17. The Assessing Officer cannot undertake the proceedings of reassessment under Section 143(3), read with Section 147 of the Act, unless a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued to the Assessee. Mere participation of the Assessee in the assessment proceedings, in the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to frame an assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 18. Furthermore, in response to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, requiring the Assessee to file a Return of Income in the prescribed format, the Assessee has the option to file a fresh Return of Income. In case the Assessee does not wish to file a fresh Return of Income and seeks to rely upon the Return of Income filed earlier under Section 139 of the Act, it is open to the Assessee, in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, to merely state that its earlier Return of Income be treated as the Return of Income in response to the notice and he remains bound by it. If the Assessee seeks to reiterate its earlier Return of Income, it is not necessary for the Assessee to refile a copy of its earlier Return of Income. In the present case, the Assessees

have chosen not to file a fresh return and have reiterated their Return of Income already filed, Thus, the obligation on the Revenue to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, requiring the Assessee to produce evidence on which the Assessee seeks to rely on in support of the Return of Income, cannot be dispensed with. 19. Furthermore, Section 143(3) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to make an assessment after hearing such evidence as the Assessee may produce and such evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. 20. Admittedly, in the present case, no notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee for the respective assessment years. Consequently, in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the Assessing Officer could not have framed the assessments, and as such the proceedings are vitiated. As held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the omission on the part of the Assessing Authority to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is not a mere procedural irregularity and is not curable. 21. Furthermore, mere participation in the proceedings by the Assessees does not come to the aid of the Revenue in terms of the Section 292BB of the Act. Reference has been made to the judgment of this Court in Commissioner

of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal3, wherein this Court has held that the scope of Section 292BB is to make service of notice, having certain infirmities, to be proper and valid, if there was requisite participation on the part of the Assessee. It does not save complete absence of notice and nonissuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the act by the Revenue, and will make the entire proceedings invalid. 22. A letter given by the Assessing Officer under section 142 (1)4 of the

3 (2021) 18 SCC 691 4 Inquiry before assessment. 142. (1) For the purpose of making an assessment under this Act, the Assessing Officer may serve on any person who has made a return under section 115WD or section 139 or in whose case the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return has expired a notice requiring him, on a date to be therein specified, — (i) ***** (ii) to produce, or cause to be produced, such accounts or documents as the Assessing Officer may require, or (iii) to furnish in writing and verified in the prescribed manner information in such form and on such points or matters (including a statement of all assets and liabilities of the assessee, whether included in the accounts or not) as the Assessing Officer may require: Provided that—******** (2) For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Assessing Officer may make such inquiry as he considers necessary. *******

Act during the course of reassessment proceedings would not satisfy the requirements of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a sine qua non for commencing the proceedings. A letter issued after commencing the proceedings would not cover up the lacuna in the proceedings and would not validate what is non est. 23. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court. The question of law raised are, thus, answered as under: (i) Section 292BB of the Act does not preclude an Assessee from raising an objection in any proceedings under the Act regarding non issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, merely because the Assessee had appeared and cooperated during the reassessment proceedings without raising any objection with regard to non-issuance of the notice. and (ii) The revenue is not absolved of its obligation to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act even if the Assessee requests that the earlier Return of Income filed under Section 139 of the Act be treated as the Return of Income filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act . and (iii) Mere issuance of a letter by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings, requiring the Assessee to explain the grounds on which re-assessment of income was proposed, does not amount to sufficient compliance of the mandatory

obligation to serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. 24. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeals, and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

…………………….J. [SANJAY KUMAR]

…………………………….J.

[SANJEEV SACHDEVA] New Delhi; October 28, 2026

AI-assisted summary, reviewed and verified by our editorial team.

In the Court's words

“A notice under section 143(2) of the Act is sine qua non for a proceeding for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. In the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, no further proceedings can be undertaken by the Revenue.”
“Said deeming fiction cannot come into play where the Revenue has admittedly not even issued the notice. Where the Revenue itself contends that no notice was sent, as required under the Act, the provision of Section 292BB will have no applicability.”
“Mere participation of the Assessee in the assessment proceedings, in the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to frame an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.”
“A letter issued after commencing the proceedings would not cover up the lacuna in the proceedings and would not validate what is non est.”

Need help with your case?

Facing a similar legal challenge in the Supreme Court or High Court? Connect with our pro bono volunteer advocates today.

Request Free Callback
Litigation India

Insight First, Action Next. A public-service initiative to make justice understandable for every Indian.

contact@litigationindia.com

+91 9956486585

New Delhi, India

Quick Links

Our Mission

To empower ordinary citizens, litigants, and junior advocates across India by translating complex Supreme Court of India judgments into editor-verified, plain-language summaries in both English and Hindi. We aim to bridge the gap between judicial proceedings and everyday citizens by delivering verified legal insights and offering free, pro bono guidance from experienced Supreme Court advocates—ensuring no individual suffers injustice merely for lack of correct guidance.

Legal Disclaimer: The information and case summaries on this website are provided for general public understanding only and do not constitute legal advice. Accessing this website or any guidance here does not create an attorney-client relationship, which is established only upon a formal engagement with a lawyer. Litigation India is an informational, public-service platform — always consult a qualified advocate before acting on any information relating to your specific matter.

© 2026 Litigation India. All rights reserved.