In August 2025, a series of significant events unfolded within Tribunals and Commissions. From NHRC’s suo motu interventions, to the NCLAT Judicial Member’s recusal from an IBC appeal following a request for a favourable order, the August 2025 events from Tribunals and Commissions were both diverse and impactful. Regulatory actions included SEBI penalties in insider trading, CCPA’s fine on Rapido for misleading ads, and SAT’s relief in the Sadhna Broadcast case, this quick legal roundup presents the month’s most significant stories from Regulatory Bodies, Tribunals, and Commissions.
National Human Rights Commission
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of girl student burned by cook for asking for food at a residential school in Bihar
On 08-08-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) took suo motu cognizance of a media report concerning a girl student who was reportedly suffered injuries after being burned with a hot spatula by a cook at Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School in the Shakurabad area of Jehanabad, Bihar. The incident occurred after the student asked the cook for food. According to the media report, the same cook had been accused of a similar incident in the past and transferred to a different department due to a complaint against her. Read more HERE
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of Zimbabwean student’s death following assault in Punjab
On 27-08-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) took suo motu cognizance of reported death of a Zimbabwean student in Bathinda, Punjab. According to the report, the student was allegedly assaulted by a group of people and later succumbed to his injuries at AIIMS, Bathinda, on 21-09-2025. He was a graduation student at Guru Kashi University, Talwandi Sabo Town. He had a prior altercation with a security guard a day before he was assaulted by him and his accomplices on 13-08-2025. An FIR has been registered in the case. Read more HERE
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of reported sexual abuse of 7-year-old boy by Mosque Imam in Roorkee
On 28-08-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) took suo motu cognizance of the reported rape of a 7-year-old boy by a Mosque Imam in Roorkee, Uttarakhand. As per the media report, an Imam sexually abused a 7-year-old boy at a mosque in the Jhabreda area of Roorkee, Uttarakhand, on 20-08-2025. Reportedly, the victim boy had gone to study in the mosque. The perpetrator took the victim to his room forcefully and committed the heinous act. He also threatened the victim with his life if he revealed the incident to anyone, but the victim immediately informed his family after reaching home. The NHRC observed that if the contents of the news report were true, it raised serious concerns about human rights violations. Therefore, the NHRC issued notices to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Roorkee, calling for a detailed report on the matter within two weeks. Read more HERE
NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of reported corporal punishment to students in Bihar
On 28-08-2025, the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) took suo motu cognizance of the reported corporal punishment to 18 students by a teacher in Katihar, Bihar. As per the media report, about 18 students were locked in a room and subjected to corporal punishment by a teacher at a government school in Haflaganj area on 21-08-2025. Their ordeal ended when some parents, who were at the school for work, raised the alarm. The NHRC observed that if the news report was true, it raised serious issues of human rights violations. It issued notices to the State Chief Secretary and the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, calling for a detailed report on the matter within two weeks. Read more HERE
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Limitation period of S.95 IBC applications against personal guarantor based on DRT recovery certificate is three years: NCLAT, Delhi
In an appeals filed by the IDBI Bank, challenging the two identical orders passed on 5-5-2025 by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), Indore Special Bench, Court — I, whereby IDBI’s Section 95 application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) against the personal guarantor (‘respondent’) was rejected, the Bench of Ashok Bhushan J. and Barun Mitra Member (Technical), upheld the decision of adjudicating authority that the Section 95 application filed by IDBI Bank was filed after expiry of three years period of limitation. Thus, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and accordingly, dismissed them. Read more HERE
NCLAT Chennai Judicial Member recuses from IBC appeal after request for favourable order by a revered Higher Judiciary Member: NCLAT, Chennai
In a Company Appeal filed against the Impugned order dated 14-7-2023 whereby the Corporate Debtor- appellant was admitted to Section 9 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Bench of Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) had reserved the judgement on 18-6-2025 and via order dated 24-6-2025 directed the continuance of operation of interim order dated 18-7-2023. The Bench observed with anguish that Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial), had recused himself from hearing the matter as he had been approached by one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of the country, seeking a favourable order for a particular party. The matter was, thus, placed before the chairman for nomination of an appropriate bench. Read more HERE
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI hits Trader with Rs 10 lakh penalty for insider trading in HDFC-HDFC Bank merger.
In the proceedings initiated by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) against a Noticee under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act 1992 (‘SEBI Act’) for alleged insider trading in the scrips of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (‘HDFC Ltd.’) and HDFC Bank Ltd. during their amalgamation/merger announcement period, Jai Sebastine (Adjudicating Officer) held that the Noticee traded on the basis of the Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (‘UPSI’) in violations of Regulations 3(2) and 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PTI Regulations’) and Sections 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act, imposing a penalty of Rs 10 lakh. The Adjudicating Officer reiterated that when a person who has traded in securities has been in possession of unpublished price sensitive information, his trades would be presumed to have been motivated by the knowledge and awareness of such information in his possession. Read more HERE
SEBI finds no evidence of misleading YouTube promotions in Hemo Organic Ltd. stock activity; disposes of proceedings against the notices
While adjudicating a proceeding against the Noticees over allegation of violating the several provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (‘PFUTP Regulations’) in relation to trading activities in the shares of Hemo Organic Ltd. (‘HOL’), The bench of Asha Shetty (Adjudicating Officer) held that, due to the absence of crucial information, particularly the missing YouTube videos and insufficient link between the alleged acts and trading behaviour, the violations could not be established. The Adjudicating Officer emphasised that the material available on record was not sufficient to ascertain whether the Noticees disseminated misleading information in the scrip of HOL to public through video on YouTube channels viz. “Money Wise” and “The Advisor”. Read more HERE
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
CESTAT, Bangalore: Whether service tax can be levied on transfer or assignment of copyright of the film produced under copyright service? CESTAT answers
In the present case, the issue for consideration was whether service tax could be levied on exhibition of films under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (‘BAS’) or demand could be confirmed against transfer or assignment of copyright of the film produced by the appellant under copyright service. The two-member Bench of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member)* and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member), set aside the order of Adjudication Authority and held that the agreement for absolute assignment of right for perpetual period would not fall under the category of copyright service thus, demand of service tax was unsustainable. Further, the order confirming demand under BAS was also held unsustainable as it was not mentioned that which service out of the seven services specified in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’), was undertaken by the appellant. Read more HERE
Drawback due on goods will be payable when the amount is less than market value of goods: CESTAT, New Delhi
In an appeal filed against the order passed by Commissioner of customs, the two-member Bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member)* setting aside the order stated that in accordance with Section 76 (1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act), “No drawback due will be payable unless the amount of drawback which will be due on the goods itself, exceeds the market value of the goods”. The Tribunal held that as long as the drawback due is less than the market value of the goods, it is payable. The Tribunal further stated that the transaction value (FOB value) on which drawback has to be paid need not be the same as the market value of the goods. Read more HERE
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
LPS terms under PPA remain binding on parties dehors subsequent tariff regulations.
In an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (‘UPPCL’) against the order dated 4-5-2020 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘Commission’), wherein the Commission set aside the invoice raised by the appellant for Late Payment Surcharge (‘LPS’), the single-member bench of Virender Bhat, Judicial Member, held that the terms under the Power Purchase Agreement (‘PPA’) would remain binding on parties throughout the life of the PPA dehors the subsequent tariff regulations. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commission and upheld the invoice raised by the appellant. Read more HERE
Securities Appellate Tribunal
Read why Securities Appellate Tribunal granted relief to Naman Broadcasting in Sadhna Broadcast stock manipulation case
The present appeal is filed under Section 15-T of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’) to set aside order dated 29-5-2025, the Bench of P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. (Presiding Officer), Meera Swarup (Technical Member), and Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order against Naman Broadcasting Telecommunications (P) Ltd., one of the participant companies alleged to contravene the provision of SEBI Act, 1992 and the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations 2003. Subsequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to SEBI’s Whole-Time Member (WTM) for fresh consideration. Read more HERE
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
CCPA imposes Rs 10 Lakhs penalty on Rapido for its ‘Guaranteed Auto’ & ‘Auto in 5 min or get ₹ 50’ Advertisements
While considering a suo motu matter concerning Misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice by Rapido (Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd), the Bench of Nidhi Khare, Chief Commissioner and Anupam Mishra, Commissioner, in order to safeguard the interests of consumers, directed Rapido to discontinue the display of misleading advertisement and imposed a penalty of Rs 10,00,000 (ten lakhs) for publishing misleading advertisement and unfair trade practices. Read more HERE
