This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Karan Johar’s personality rights, election petition against Devender Attri, judicial and investigative failures, biological father’s consent for adoption, carrying licensed weapon outside jurisdiction, share trading scam, obscene content circulated by 19-year-old, 558 aided UP Madrasas, dummy school menace, Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible, cerebral palsy, burdening husbands with maintenance, minor boy kidney transplant without father’s consent, Israeli national obtained Aadhaar card, IREO Group’s MD in PMLA case, daily wage workers’ service not casual, and more.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Ruling on UP Govt. banning caste mentions in police records, public signs, vehicles, etc.
In an application filed seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, summoning order, and chargesheet arising out of a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Sections 60 and 63 of the Excise Act, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J. after reviewing the records and documents, found that it was prima facie established that the accused had been arrested on the spot. The investigation further revealed that the accused was allegedly the gang leader involved in liquor smuggling across state borders. Therefore, the Court held that there were no grounds to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused. The Court emphasised that questions relating to the assessment of evidence, reliability, or credibility of the prosecution did not fall within the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the proceedings had been initiated with malice, ulterior motives, or personal vendetta. Consequently, the application was dismissed as devoid of merit. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government and its Director General of Police (‘DGP’) to amend the police manuals to prohibit the disclosure of caste in investigations and related public records. [Praveen Chetri v. State of UP, Application u/S 482 No. — 31545 of 2024, decided on 16-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Such apathetic approach is antithesis to rule of law’; Rs 1 Lakh cost imposed on State for 15 years’ delay in presenting final report in criminal case
A petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to issue directions to the respondents to present cancellation report in FIR under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) as the matter had already been compromised between the parties in 2007. A Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that this case illustrated lack of due diligence and reflected apathetic approach which could only be curbed if the Courts, across the system, adopted an institutional approach which penalized such comportment. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition by imposing a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on Punjab for a delay of 15 years in presenting the final report. [Kimti Lal v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 43052 of 2025, decided on 22-9-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘S. 59 of Maharashtra Police Act is heart and soul of externment proceedings’; Order passed without hearing was quashed
A writ petition was filed challenging the externment order passed by the Sub Divisional Police officer under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (‘the Act’), on the ground that it was issued without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The order was based on 7 criminal cases, wherein the petitioner was accused of various offences under Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of M.M. Nerlikar, J., held that following the procedure enshrined under Section 59 of the Act which included giving opportunity of hearing before passing the order, is mandatory, violation of the same resulted in the breach of fundamental right given under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Court opined that both the adjudicating authorities passed the order without application of mind as they failed to consider that the petitioner was discharged from 5 of the cases and also did not consider the in-camera statements. Hence, the Court held that it is a plight that the fundamental right of the petitioner was curtailed on the stale grounds, therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the externment order. [Bharat Shatrughana Bhosale v. Commr., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3283, decided on 15-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ADOPTION
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Biological father’s consent for adoption from his refusal to take a definite stand
In a writ petition filed by the petitioners against the communications from the Central Adoption Resource Agency (‘CARA’) and State Adoption Resource Agency (‘SARA’) insisting on the consent of the biological father in case of adoption of minor child, a Single-Judge Bench of B.M. Shyam Prasad, J., while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to complete the adoption process. The Court held that when the biological father has not taken a definite stand on the issue, despite an opportunity being given to him, consent could be inferred in favour of the adoption, as the best interest of the minor child is paramount. [X v. Central Adoption Resource Agency, Writ Petition No. 15957 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided on 22-08-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No exclusivity between Dreamfolks and its clients’; Restraining order against Encalm in airport lounge case was declined to be passed
In a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking grant of an interim order restraining Encalm Hospitality (‘Encalm’) and its representatives from entering a contract with Dreamfolk’s clients, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that there was no exclusivity between Dreamfolk and its clients. As such, the clients were free to enter into similar agreements with other service providers, including Encalm. Thus, the Court declined to restrain Encalm from contracting with Dreamfolk’s clients. [Dreamfolks Services Ltd. v. Encalm Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6037, decided on 16-9-2025
Read more HERE
ARMS ACT
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Man, who being asleep while travelling, carried only Punjab licensed weapon into Chandigarh was acquitted
In the present revision petition, the accused challenged the judgment of conviction, for carrying licensed weapon outside allowed jurisdiction, passed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’). He also challenged the order of sentence whereby he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth, J., held that it was not reasonable to infer that he had willfully committed an offence by carrying the weapon in an unauthorized area without requisite permission considering that he travelled a short distance of approximately 100 yards into Chandigarh and that he was asleep during the journey. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted him of all the charges. [Amritpal Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 8664, decided on 15-9-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | “Unbecoming of a member of the Bar”; Anticipatory bail to Advocate couple in share trading scam with unrealistic 10-15% monthly profit claim denied
In the present case, the applicants filed an application for anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant alleged that the applicants persuaded him to part with a large sum of money by assuring abnormally high profits through intraday share trading. A Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., rejected the application, holding that the promise of 10 to 15 per cent monthly profit was unrealistic and impractical, as no genuine business could yield such returns. The Court emphasized that such inducement reflected dishonest intention at inception, and the assurance of guaranteed profit showed that the applicants were not conducting a lawful business but were luring the informant with false promises for financial gain. [Rupali Bapurao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3197, decided on 17-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘No social media for 3 years’ as bail condition for 19-year-old accused of circulating obscene content
In a bail application filed by the 19-year-old accused seeking bail for offences under Sections 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (‘’IT Act), a Single-Judge Bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., granted bail to the accused observing that the accused was 19-year -old 2nd year college student with no criminal antecedent. Further, the Court imposed strict conditions including the 3-year social media ban for the accused on Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat or like platform in any form either in his own or fictitious name. [Akash v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11755/2025, decided on 16-09-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Bar on anticipatory bail under S. 18 SC/ST Act inapplicable if substantive offence not established
The present set of appeals were filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), by Accused 1 and 2, challenging the dismissal of their anticipatory bail application by the Special Judge vide order dated 27-08-2025, in relation to a crime registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Gopinath P., J., while setting aside the dismissal order, held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would only be applicable, if prima facie the alleged offence was established, but since in the present case, the prosecution could not do so, the Court directed the accused to be released on anticipatory bail. [Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 8602, decided on 17-09-2025]
Read more HERE
CIVIL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate’s office’; 75-day delay in filing written statement condoned
While considering an interim application filed by a cooperative housing society (applicant), for the condonation of delay of 75 days in filing written statement, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that the limitation for fling the written statement was rightly calculated by the applicant from the date of the service of summons as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). Additionally, the Court opined that the applicants, upon finding out the lapse by the advocate’s office in filing the written statement, were vigilant enough to contact the Advocate themselves. Thereafter, the written statement was immediately finalised and filed in the Court. Thus, the Court condoned the delay stating that litigant cannot be made to suffer when the lapse was made on the part of the Advocate, especially when the delay was merely of 75 days. [Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, I.A 4761 of 2025, decided on: 20-9-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Section 179(1) BNSS does not empower police with unlimited jurisdiction; Notice cannot be issued beyond own or adjoining station
The petitioner filed a writ petition, aggrieved by the repeated notices sent to him, to appear before the investigating officer in Vijayawada, pursuant to a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) wherein he was not the accused. A Single Judge Bench of Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., opined that the petitioner being the resident of Noida was territorially restricted from being called at Vijayawada Police Station. Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) does not empower the Police Officer with unlimited jurisdiction to issue such notice to any person, who is residing far away. Thus, the Court stated that the Police Officer making an investigation has no power to issue notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS to any person who is not residing within the limits of his own station or any adjoining station. Additionally, being 65-year-old and of ill-health, the petitioner fell into the exempted categories of persons as per the provisions of Section 179 of BNSS. Therefore, the Court held that the Police Station, was at liberty to take necessary steps to examine the petitioner at his place by giving prior information to the petitioner according to governing rules and law. [V.D. Moorthy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3099, decided on: 22-8-2025]
Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘SDM couldn’t have initiated preventive proceedings in private dispute’; Summoning notice under S. 111 CrPC quashed
In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’), Una, who had summoned him under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) in a private dispute, after believing that there was a possibility of breach of peace. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., quashed the order passed by the SDM, observing that it failed to meet the requirements of Section 111 CrPC and that the SDM could not have initiated the preventive proceedings in a private dispute. [Ajay Thakur v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4728, decided on 17-09-2025].
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Release of detenue held without evidence ordered; Note of judicial and investigative failures under S. 189 BNSS taken
The present petition was filed by the detenue’s sister, who sought a writ of habeas corpus for his release from Taloja Central Prison alleging illegal detention despite reports indicating insufficient evidence against him. The Division Bench of Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., while allowing the petition, held that the Investigating Officer failed to fulfil his duty under Section 189 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), which mandates release of an accused when evidence was deficient. The Court emphasized that even the Special Judge ought to have intervened, and since there was no remand order beyond 22-08-2025, the Jail Superintendent had no authority to detain the detenue. The Court found that there was a failure to perform duty at every stage, which resulted in the detenue’s continued illegal detention in Taloja Central Prison. [Afreen Abubakar Tayal v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3207, decided on 17-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Investigation against IO who verbally abused and misbehaved with accused and his counsel outside Court premises ordered
While taking cognizance, on a joint verbal complaint by the convict and his counsel, qua verbally abusive behavior by the investigating officer of the convict’s case outside the Court’s precinct, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga, J, opined that the investigating officer could not turn his Khaki to such level of arrogance that would allow him to misbehave and threaten officer of the Court. Accordingly, the Court directed an investigation into the entire matter by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. [Rameshwar v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi, Crl. A. No. 284 of 2025, decided on 22-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Devangana Kalita’s plea for reconstruction of case diary but allowed for its preservation rejected
In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside an order dated 6-11-2024, wherein the trial Court had declined the plea of Delhi Riots accused Devangana Kalita for preservation and reconstruction of case diary, the Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J, held that even though case diary is not evidence, its absence may affect fairness of trial. Thus, the Court allowed for the preservation of case diary but rejected the plea for reconstruction of the same. [Devangana Kalita v. State NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C. No. 8909 of 2024, decided on 22-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | NHRC orders directing EOW to conduct inquiry into 558 aided Madrasas across the State
In a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia (‘Association’) challenging the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’), whereby the NHRC had directed the Director General, Economic Offences Wing, U.P., Lucknow, to conduct an inquiry into all 558 aided Madrasas across the State, the Division Bench of Saral Srivastava and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ., stayed the operation of the orders passed by the NHRC. [Teachers Association Madaris Arabia v. National Human Rights Commission, WRIT — C No. — 32051 of 2025, decided on 22-09-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Constitution of SITs to probe into dummy school menace was ordered
In a series of civil writ petitions filed by petitioner and some students against the Central Board of Secondary Education (‘CBSE’) punishment order of de-affiliation for one year and downgrading from Senior Secondary School to Secondary School, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., directed the CBSE to pass a fresh reasoned order after considering all the evidence and contentions of the schools. The Court, after observing the menace created by the dummy schools which were degrading the education system ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to conduct surprise inspections of schools and coaching centers and take appropriate action. The Court hoped that the Department of Education, State Government, CBSE and Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education will come forward by enacting beneficial bye-laws in the interest of children at large for their better future and career. [LBS Convent School v. Central Board of Secondary Education, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9380/2025, decided on 15-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | BJP MLA Devender Attri’s plea to reject election petition against him dismissed
An application was filed by Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, BJP MLA (‘Respondent 1’) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Section 151 of the CPC and Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’) seeking dismissal of the amended election petition filed against him. A Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara J. held that the said amendment did not increase or improve the scope of the petition, it rather restricted, reduced, and decreased the scope of prayers, thus, no prejudice was caused to the Respondent 1. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition. [Brijendra Singh v. Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, CM No. 36 E of 2025, decided on 18-9-2025]
Read more HERE
EVIDENCE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified
In the present case, the petitioner had filed a Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai contending that the Trial Court ought to have accepted the xerox copy of the original cheque as secondary evidence. A Single Judge Bench of Shamim Ahmed, J., while allowing the Criminal Revision Case, set aside the order and held that rejection of the xerox copy solely for lack of proof of loss, without adhering to Sections 63(2), 63(3), and 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’), was unsustainable. The Court emphasised that the Trial Court, having accepted the original cheque and made an endorsement, ought to have admitted the xerox copy, but its failure to do so, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. [Mohammed Iqbal v. S. Manonmanian, Crl.RC (MD) No. 662 of 2025, decided on 16-09-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Refusal to allow brother’s widow to reside in shared household constitutes Domestic violence
In the present revision application, the applicant challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the non-applicants were allowed to reside in the shared household with costs of Rs 20,000 to be paid to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the non-applicant never shared or resided in the house with her husband. A Single Judge Bench of Urmila Joshi Phalke, J., while partly allowing the application to the extent that the non-applicant, along with her son, was entitled to reside in the shared household, held that the words “has lived together at any point of time” covered past cohabitation, and any other interpretation would defeat the object of the provisions. The Court emphasised that, as long as the relationship existed and the parties had lived together at any point, the application was maintainable. [Ashish v. Mohini, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3206, decided on 16-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Non-disclosure about cerebral palsy by wife’s family, entitles husband to annul marriage
The present writ petition was filed by the appellant-husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition which was filed on the ground of suppression of the disease of cerebral palsy by the family members of the respondent-wife. The Division Bench of Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More*, JJ., opined that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition of the husband on the ground that cerebral palsy only restricted the bodily movements and did not affect the behaviour of the person especially whether certificate obtained from the medical board clearly stated that it was a non-progressive intellectual deformity. The Court held that the Family Court ought to have considered the aspect of suppression of an incurable disease by the family members. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Family Court and declared the marriage between the couple as null and void as the couple had only stayed together for 6 months and the wife was unable to perform her marital duties due to her medical conditions. [X v. Y, Family Court Apl. No. 92 of 2023, decided on: 22-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Educated Wives cannot be generalised as idle women burdening husbands with maintenance.
In the present revision, the petitioner husband sought to challenge the order passed by the Family Court, which had allowed the petition filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the opposite parties, his wife (OP 1) and daughter (OP 2), for maintenance at Rs 5,000 each per month. The husband alleged that the wife was earning more than him and had voluntarily deserted him without any cause, and therefore was not entitled to maintenance. A Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., while dismissing the revision, emphasised that it could not have universal application in all cases that a wife with high qualification was intentionally avoiding work to harass the husband and saddle him with liability, unless there was material evidence to that effect. [G. Debendra Rao v. G.Puspa Prabha Rao, RPFAM No.18 of 2021, decided on 16-09-2025]
Read more HERE
HEALTHCARE RIGHTS
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Medical College to provide treatment for kidney transplant to a minor boy without insisting on father’s consent
In the present petition, the petitioner, mother of a 13-year-old boy with Chronic Kidney Disease Stage V, filed a writ seeking renal transplantation without requiring the father’s consent, as the hospital insisted on it despite the father having deserted the family in 2017. A Single Judge Bench of M. Dhandapani, J., while allowing the petition, directed the Dean and the Head of the Nephrology Department of the Government Stanley Medical College and Hospital to provide appropriate treatment for renal transplantation to the minor child. The Court specifically instructed that no unreasonable demands, including the father’s consent, should be insisted upon. [A. Kasthuri v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 6340, decided on 18-09-2025]
Read more HERE
LAND DISPUTE
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT | Dealership and Lease Agreements are distinct, disputes must be litigated independently
The present intra Court appeal was filed against the common judgment passed by the Single Judge (‘Writ Court’), wherein two writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the appellant (‘Corporation’) either to purchase the leased out land or to revoke the lease enabling Respondent 1 to sell the leased property free from all encumbrances. The Division Bench of Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem*, JJ., set aside the judgment of the Writ Court and held that a dealership agreement and a lease agreement were distinct contracts and any disputes arising out of them could be litigated separately. The Court further held that if there was an arbitration clause contained in them, the Court must not entertain any dispute regarding any matter which could be dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. Zareena Akhter, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 943, decided on 15-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PERSONAL RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Amid NDPS probe, UIDAI directed to reveal demographic information of Israeli national who obtained Aadhaar card despite ineligibility
In the present application, the State sought disclosure of the demographic information under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act (‘the Act’), 2016 (‘Aadhar Act’) of the respondent, an Israeli national, who was found residing in Goa without valid travel documents and alleged to have obtained an Aadhaar card despite being ineligible. A Single Judge Bench of Valmiki Menezes, J., while allowing the application, held that the respondent admittedly had no passport or valid visa at the time the Aadhaar card was issued, or his demographic information was collected. The Court stated that the word “resident” must be read in the context of valid residence, and that a foreigner would be required to have a visa or travel document issued by the Government of India, permitting residence under visa conditions. [State of Goa v. Unique Identification Authority of India, Criminal Application (Main) No.13 of 2025, decided on 23-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Karan Johar’s Personality Rights were protected; interim injunction granted
In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Karan Johar, sought a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 13 from infringement of copyright, performer’s rights, misappropriation of Personality Rights and passing off, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh, J, held that the unauthorized use of Karan Johar’s persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favor of Karan Johar and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites, platforms and social media accounts disseminating content that violate his Personality Rights. [Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6108, decided on 17-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PMLA
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Stranger with no direct prejudice cannot clothe himself as aggrieved party’; Plea to cancel bail of IREO Group’s MD in PMLA case dismissed
A petition was filed by an advocate, under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Managing Director (‘accused’) of the IREO Group, in public interest, in FIR under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Penal code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., while dismissing the petition, held that a stranger with no direct prejudice could not clothe himself with the status of an ‘aggrieved party’ and invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. [Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal, CRM-M No. 48019 of 2024, decided on 17-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PROTEST
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Prior permission for protest necessary; Authorities cannot obstruct travel arbitrarily when protestor held valid tickets
In the present petition, the petitioner, President of an organization formed for the welfare of farmers and for promoting river water linkage, sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the authorities from interfering with his and his members’ free movement to New Delhi. He alleged repeated obstruction during travel for peaceful demonstrations, including being deboarded from trains despite holding valid tickets. A Single Judge Bench of B. Pugalendhi, J., while disposing of the petition, held that while the petitioner was bound to obtain prior permission and conduct protests in accordance with law, the authorities were equally not entitled to obstruct his travel arbitrarily when he was in possession of valid tickets. [P. Ayyakannu v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 6829, decided on 17-09-2025]
Read more HERE
TENANCY RIGHTS
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Eviction order against tenant binds sub-tenant if he fails to establish his tenancy directly under landlord’s predecessor-in-interest
The present revision petition was filed by the sub-tenant under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (‘Rent Act’) assailing the order of the Appellate Authority, Hamirpur whereby the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld. A Single Judge Bench of Satyen Vaidya, J., while dismissing the revision petition, held that since the sub-tenant had failed to establish his tenancy under the previous landlord, he was bound by the eviction order issued against the tenant. [Ashok Kumar v. Dulari Kapil, Civil Revision No.72 of 2018, decided on 17-09-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Calling daily wage workers’ service as ‘casual’ is morally unjust’; Plea for regularization allowed
The present petition was filed by daily wage workers (‘petitioners’) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside order passed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (‘respondent’) whereby their claim seeking regularization was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., held that fairness demanded that those who had given a lifetime to public service should not be left stranded in their twilight years with nothing but hope and equity should not be a casualty in the hands of executive convenience. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition. [Harbhajan Singh v. Bhakra Beas Management Board, CWP No. 6843 of 2020 (O&M), decided on 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
TAX
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Assessee not ‘eligible’ under S. 144-C Income Tax Act, if no income variation made by Transfer Pricing Officer
In the writ petition challenging Draft and Final Assessment Order passed under Section 144-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’) on the ground that the petitioner did not fall under the category of ‘eligible assessee’ under the said provision, as no income variation was made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) in its order, the Division Bench of B. P. Colabawalla* and Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ., stated that petitioner could be an ‘eligible assessee’ only if there was a case of variation which had arisen because of the order passed by the TPO. The Court stated that when there was no variation, there was no question of any prejudice being caused to the assessee which would then entail him to file any objections to the Draft Order as contemplated under Section 144-C(2) of IT Act. Therefore, the order passed was invalid. Hence, the Court quashed and set aside the Draft Assessment Order, the Final Assessment Order and the Demand Notice as well as the Show Cause Notices which sought to impose penalty on the petitioner. [Classic Legends Pvt Ltd v. CIT, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14748 OF 2025, decided on: 9-9-2025]
Read more HERE
UAPA
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT | S. 21 NIA Act cannot be invoked to override complete mechanism provided under S. 25 UAPA in seizure matters
The present appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) against the order dated 25-01-2025, passed by the Special Judge (UAPA), Anantnag (‘Special Court’), whereby the application for the release of vehicle seized in connection with a terrorist related activity was dismissed. The Division Bench of Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem*, JJ., while dismissing the appeal, held that if a statutory remedy was available under the UAPA, the accused could not bypass it to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 21 of the NIA Act. [Yasir Ahmad Bhat v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 955, decided on 19-09-2025]
Read more HERE