This week’s roundup takes a deep dive into important legal developments in the High Courts this week, such as UAE Gold Smuggling Case, A.R. Rahman’s copyright case, BCI’s language mandate, Malabar Gold’s defamation, X Corp’s challenge to Sahyog Portal, and more.
ADVOCATES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Law college’s rejection of Hindi answer sheet citing BCI language mandate violation, affirmed
In the present petition, the petitioner, a 56-year-old law student challenged the college’s refusal to evaluate his Hindi-written answer sheet for the subject “Legal Language,” arguing that he had answered other papers in Hindi. The University alleged that English was the mandated medium of instruction for the course. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., while dismissing the petition held that when the medium of instruction was prescribed as English by the Bar Council of India, and the Circular specifically indicated that certain subjects, including Legal Language, were to be answered only in English, the Court did not find that the College had committed any mistake in refusing to evaluate the Petitioner’s answer sheet for the subject Legal Language. [Akhil Kumar Jain v. Children Welfare Centre’s College of Law, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3387, decided on 20-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BIHAR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT
PATNA HIGH COURT | Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act does not apply to Alcoholic content from fermentation in energy drink
In a criminal writ petition filed by accused against the State, challenging the First Information Report (‘FIR’) lodged under the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for selling alcoholic beverages under the garb of energy drinks, a Single-Judge Bench of Madhuresh Prasad, J., quashed the FIR holding that the alcoholic content discovered in the seized energy drinks was attributable to fermentation which occurred due to the lapse of time, and not due to the product being an alcoholic substance per se on the date of seizure. The Court observed that Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act does not prohibit sale etc. of the non-alcoholic substances in conformity with the standard set by the Bureau of Indian Standards (‘BIS’). The Court further observed that the law is well settled that the offence is to be determined on the date of its commission and if on the date of seizure, the energy drink was not containing any alcoholic substance, the offence was not committed as per the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. [Kumari Punam v. State of Bihar, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1405 of 2017, decided on 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Appellate power under Section 37 confined to domain of Section 34 of Arbitration Act
In a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants, challenging the affirmation of an arbitral award by the Arbitrator and the Court, a Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjeet Purohit, JJ., while dismissing the appeal held that the challenge to the existence of an arbitration clause was concluded by the Arbitrator and the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), and thus, could not be re-examined under Sections 34 or 37 of the 1996 Act. Further, the Court stressed that the scope of judicial intervention in arbitral matters under Section 37 is limited within the strict confines of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. [Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Compucon Software Ltd., D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3113/2025, decided on 15-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail maintainable only before High Court in absence of prima facie case under SC/ST Act
In the present case, a reference was made by the Single Judge, while considering the anticipatory bail applications. One of the questions that arose for adjudication was regarding maintainability of anticipatory bail applications, in cases where alleged offences did not attract the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’). The Division Bench of K. Suresh Reddy* and V. Sujatha, JJ., held that if prima facie case is not made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, then the application for anticipatory bail made under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is maintainable only before the High Court and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act. Further, the Court opined that the High Court shall retain its concurrent as well as original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act when no prima facie case is made out. Hence, the Court directed the case to be placed before an appropriate Bench for adjudication in accordance with law. [Vidadala Rajani v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3404, decided on: 19-9-2025]
Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | ‘Facilitating rape is a heinous offence’; Bail of accused rejected
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused seeking regular bail in offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 read with Section 3(5) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST (POA) Act’), the Single-Judge Bench of the S Rachaiah, J., noting that the act committed by the accused along with the co-accused will remain in as a scar in victim’s life rejected the bail application. The Court held that the facilitation of rape of the victim was a heinous offence and granting bail would not secure the confidence of young women and the public at large. [Syed Parveez Mushraff v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2025, decided on 04-09-2025]
Read more HERE
CORRUPTION
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Government Servant acquitted after 39 years in a Rs. 100 bribe case
In a criminal appeal filed by a former government servant who was convicted under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’) for accepting bribe of Rs 100, the Single Judge Bench of Bibhu Datta Guru, J., held that held that the failure of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification rendered the proceedings unsustainable and the charges against the appellant were not proved. [Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA no. 1086 of 2004, decided on 09-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to Malabar Gold; Ordered deletion of ‘Sympathiser of Pakistan’ allegations online
In the present application, the plaintiff, Malabar Gold and Diamonds Ltd. alleged that defamatory posts were being circulated on social media portraying it as a sympathiser of Pakistan, based on its prior engagement of a UK-based influencer who had later criticised India’s Operation Sindoor. The plaintiff claimed this was done by competitors to damage its business and sought injunctive relief for removal and restraint of such content. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., while ordering an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff emphasised that mere utilisation of services of the UK-based influencer could not justify defamatory content being spread by competitors. The Court observed that the plaintiff had discontinued the influencer’s services and argued that it could not be connected to her activities, especially since the controversial posts were made after her engagement ended. [Malabar Gold and Diamonds Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc, Interim Application (L) No. 30690 of 2025, decided on 29-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DEPORTATION
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Repatriation of Russian mother and daughters found in isolated Gokarna caves, allowed
In a civil writ petition filed by an Israeli citizen, seeking a direction against the deportation of Russian mother and his two minor daughters, who were found living in isolated caves of Gokarna Forest, a Single-Judge Bench of B M Shyam Prasad, J., noted the compelling circumstances, including the mother’s overstay, the family being found without resources in an isolated cave, the mother’s express desire for repatriation, the issuance of Emergency Travel Documents (‘ETDs’) by the Russian Consulate and the petitioner’s lack of explanation as to the circumstances of the mother and the children being found in isolated caves. The Court disposed of the petition holding that it was in the best interest of the children to go back to Russia. [Dror Shlomo Goldstein v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 19546, decided on 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Marriage recognised as traditional necessity; Allowed early withdrawal of fixed deposits under National Savings Time Deposit Scheme
In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the refusal to permit premature closure of her fixed deposits, wherein she was denied access to her own funds despite an urgent need arising from a marriage in the family. She submitted that premature encashment was not completely barred under Rule 8(d) of the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme, 2019 (‘2019 Scheme’), and thus warranted consideration. A Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while allowing the petition, observed that the funds in deposit belonged to the petitioner and not to the entity holding the money, since, ordinarily, the owner of a thing was entitled to make use of it in any way he or she desired, unless the law provided otherwise. [Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3617, decided on 22-09-2025]
Read more HERE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INTERNET, COMPUTER AND CYBER LAWS
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | X Corp’s challenge to Sahyog Portal rejected
In a civil writ petition filed by X Corp., challenging the constitutional validity of Sahyog Portal, for declaring that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and not Section 79(3)(b) confer authority to issue information blocking orders under the IT Act and that Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’) is ultra vires the IT Act or unconstitutional, a Single-Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that the Sahyog Portal is not an instrument of censorship but a mere facilitation mechanism, and Rule 3(1)(d) is neither ultra vires nor arbitrary, as the Constitution permits reasonable regulation and cannot be permitted to be corroded in the guise of freedom of speech and expression. The Court further noted that the law must maintain a delicate balance to walk a tight rope between the perils of unregulated expression and the dangers of unrestrained censorship. [X Corp. v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 7405 of 2025, decided on 24-09-2025] Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Order against A.R. Rahman in copyright infringement case of song ‘Veera Raja Veera’, quashed
In an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), challenging the order dated 25-4-2025 wherein the Single Judge of the Court had directed the defendants including A.R. Rahman to recognise the contribution of Junior Dagar Brothers in the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’, the Division Bench of Om Prakash Shukla* and C. Hari Shankar, JJ, held that the song ‘Shiva Stuti’, which the Junior Dagar Brothers claimed was substantially copied and used in the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’, was not the original composition of or authored by the Junior Dagar Brother. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the appeal. [AR Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6159, decided on 24-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | EBC’s iconic ‘Coat-Pocket Constitution’ protected; ‘Rupa Publications’ injuncted from passing off deceptively similar edition
In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Rupa Publications India Pvt Ltd (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style. [EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Rupa Publications India (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6146, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | EBC’s iconic ‘Coat-Pocket Constitution’ protected; ‘Professional Publishers’ injuncted from passing off deceptively similar edition
In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Professional Publishers (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style. [EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Professional Book Publishers, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6149, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | EBC’s iconic ‘Coat-Pocket Constitution’ protected; ‘Young Global Publishers’ injuncted from passing off deceptively similar edition
In an application filed by EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (plaintiffs) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against Young Global Publishers (defendant), Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., granted ex parte ad-interim injunction against defendants from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style. [EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. v. Young Global Publications, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6148, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Relief granted to CROCS in trade mark dispute; Registration of ‘CROOSE’ mark, cancelled
In a petition filed by Crocs under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) seeking cancellation of the registration of the trade mark ‘CROOSE’ (‘impugned mark’) in Class 25, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Kataria, J, held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘CROCS’. Thus, the Court directed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the impugned mark and delete it from the Register of Trade Marks. [Crocs Inc. v. Registrar, Trademarks, C.O. (COMM. I.P.D- T.M.) No. 82 of 2023, decided on 26-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Partial relief granted to Princeton University in trademark infringement case
In an appeal against an order dated 6-9-2023, whereby a Single Judge of the Court had dismissed an application filed by the appellant, Princeton University seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against the respondents to restrain it from using the mark ‘PRINCETON/PRINCETON UNIVERSITY’, the Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ, held that while the appellant had shown itself to be the prior user of the mark ‘PRINCETON’ and that it has established its goodwill and reputation in India as well, however, since the appellants did not have an actual physical presence in India and the respondents had been using the mark for a long period of time, an interim injunction couldn’t be granted. The Court, however, granted partial relief to the appellant and restrained the respondent from using the mark ‘PRINCETON’ in establishing any new institution or society. [Trustees of Princeton University v. Vagdevi Educational Society, FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 239 of 2025, decided on 26-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Can infringement action be filed against a registered trade mark
In an appeal against a commercial Court order, wherein the Court had granted an injunction restraining the appellants from using their registered trade mark ‘VAIDYA RISHI’, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ, held that no action for infringement can lie against a proprietor of a registered trade mark. Thus, the Court set aside the order of injunction against the appellants. [Vaidya Rishi India Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Dutt Parashar, FAO (COMM) No. 122 of 2024, decided on 7-9-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Interim injunction granted to Asha Bhosle protecting her Personality Rights; Orders blocking of infringing websites, platforms and YouTube videos
The present interim application was filed in a Commercial Suit instituted by Asha Bhosle, seeking an injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 6 from infringement of her copyright and performer’s rights and the misappropriation of her Personality Rights. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while observing that unauthorizedly using Asha Bhosle’s persona amounted to infringement of her Personality Rights, granted a temporary injunction in favour of Asha Bhosle and directed that any violative content be taken down, and the infringing websites, platforms and YouTube channels be blocked. [Asha Bhosle v. Mayc Inc, Interim Application (L) No. 30382 of 2025, decided on 29-09-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction granted protecting Mankind Pharma’s ‘KIND’ trade mark
In an application filed by Mankind Pharma Limited (‘Mankind’) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (‘CPC’) for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing on the Mankind’s trade mark, ‘KIND’, FENDIKIND’, ‘ZENKIND’ and ‘DIZIKIND’, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the defendants products were deceptively similar to those of the Mankind and amounted to infringement of Mankind’strade marks. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using Mankind’s trade marks till further notice. [Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Biodiscovery Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., C.S. (COMM) No. 1016 of 2025, decided on 24-9-2025]
Read more HERE
JUDICIARY
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Criteria of securing minimum 50% marks in Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service examination not arbitrary
A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging Clause 8.4 of the notifications issued for the States of Haryana and Punjab for direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judge imposing ‘minimum marks qualification’ of 50 per cent marks in aggregate for being in contravention of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘Haryana Rules’) and Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘Punjab Rules’). The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Sanjiv Berry*, J., held that the said notifications were not at all arbitrary in nature but were in consonance with the respective Service Rules to choose the best available talent for performance of the duties as a Member of Superior Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition. [Rushil Jindal v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 9113, decided on 22-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Probe ordered against Magistrate and Sessions Judge for staying arrest despite dismissal of bail application by High Court and Supreme Court
In an application for anticipatory bail, wherein the accused had already filed four anticipatory bail applications as well as two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) that had been dismissed by the Sessions Court, High Court and Supreme Court, the Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J, opined that the entertainment of another anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court despite dismissal orders from both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court amounted to judicial indiscipline and impropriety. Thus, the Court dismissed the application and directed further investigation into the matter. [Nikhil Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6150, decided on 24-9-2025]
Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | ‘Courts should be tolerant; strictures against public servants must be avoided unless absolutely necessary’: Disparaging remarks expunged
In the case where the petitioner challenged the order dated 08-09-2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’), Samba, to the extent of passing of strictures against her when she could not attend the JJB’s proceeding to argue a bail matter as she was engaged before another Court, recording statements of prosecution, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., directed to expunge the remarks made against the petitioner and observed that the Courts were expected to be tolerant in dealing with minor lapses of public servants and merely because a public prosecutor was unable to argue a matter, it did not warrant the passing of strictures. [Anu Charak v. State (UT of J&K), CM (M) No. 265 of 2025, decided on 22-09-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘This is attack on entire judiciary’: Hooliganism made in open Court by advocate upon rejection of anticipatory bail, condemned
While dealing with an anticipatory bail application, filed by the petitioners, in which allegations with respect to grabbing land of an 80-year-old informant were concerned, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., observed that such types of crime were very rampant in the State of Jharkhand and thus, rejected the same. Further, the Court stated that when the above-mentioned order was being passed, the petitioners’ counsel argued in loud speech threatening to go to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Court criticized the hooliganism made in open Court, which was witnessed by all the advocates present there. The Court on the request of the Members of the Bar, took a lenient view, and referred the matter to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Bar Council to look into it accordingly. [Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, A.B.A. No. 5362 of 2025, decided on 25-9-2025]
Read more HERE
NDPS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to foreign national in NDPS case; highlights lapses in sample testing and prolonged pre-trial incarceration
In a bail application filed by a foreign national accused of carrying commercial quantity of contraband, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga, J, held that since the contents of individual packets had been mixed before being sent for testing, it was difficult to say whether the quantity of contraband seized qualified as ‘commercial quantity’. Thus, the Court granted bail to the accused. [Quentin Decon v. Customs, Bail Appln. No. 914 of 2025, decided on 25-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Substantial justice cannot be denied for technical reasons’: Delay caused due to Advocate’s negligence and inaction, caused
The instant appeal was filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) as the First Appellate Tribunal had rejected his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal arising out of the judgement passed by the Trial Court. A Single Judge Bench of M.W. Chandwani, J., opined that delay was caused on the ground that the Advocate of the appellant (original defendant) did not inform the appellant, for three years that the case had been withdrawn by the respondent, which constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Additionally, it was stated that the First Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant being a senior citizen had authorised his brother to represent him in the case, who himself had moved to Mumbai from Nagpur. The Court held that since there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction by the appellant, therefore, a broad and liberal view had to be adopted so as to advance substantive justice and the right of the appellant could not be taken away due to the negligence on part of his Advocate. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay caused in filing of the appeal subject to the payment of Rs. 25,000 as costs. [Narayan v. Shashank, Second Apl. No. 26 of 2015, decided on: 19-9-2025]
Read more HERE
QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS/FIR
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “No abetment by the Company running Shaadi.com”: Extortion case quashed against Shaadi.com CEO Anupam Mittal
In a writ petition filed by Anupam Mittal, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Shaadi.com, seeking quashing of an FIR filed against him under Sections 420, 384, 507, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), the Division Bench of Madan Pal Singh and Siddhartha Varma, JJ., allowed the petition holding that, since there was no cheating on the part of Anupam Mittal and he had the protection of Section 79 of the IT Act, the offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act were not made out. [Anupam Mittal v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8702 of 2023, decided on 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Mere repayment of misappropriated amount does not efface criminal prosecution’; Foreign liquor corruption case refused to be quashed
The present petition was filed by four out of six accused persons, seeking quashment of proceedings initiated against them in relation to a case for misappropriating stock of foreign liquor amounting to Rs 27,92,523. The accused persons contended that they had already remitted the misappropriated amount and, therefore, the proceedings ought to be quashed. A Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen,J. while dismissing the petition, held that the misappropriation was complete before the remittance of the money was made and therefore, the prosecution of the accused persons was necessary. [P.N. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 8852, decided on 24-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Victim’s marriage to accused and childbirth not grounds to quash POCSO FIR
In the case, where the applicants, i.e. the accused and his family members, had sought an exception to challenge, at the initial stage, the First Information Report (‘FIR’) that alleged that the minor victim had been subjected to forceful sexual assault while she was still a minor, and that her marriage had been solemnised with the accused despite her age, the Division Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke* and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ., rejected the application and held that despite having knowledge that the girl was a minor, the accused had committed the offence from the moment he took her away from the legal custody of her parents. The Court concluded that the acts of the applicants could not be brushed aside merely because the girl had now given birth to a child. [X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (Apl) No. 1128 of 2025, decided on 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | BOI’s order classifying Jet Airways’ founder Naresh Goyal’s account as ‘fraud’, set aside
The present petition was filed by Naresh Goyal, Jet Airways’ founder, praying to set aside the Show Cause Notice (‘impugned notice’) dated 01-07-2025, which contained an order passed by the Bank of India (‘Bank’) declaring his subject account as ‘fraud’. The Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ., noted that the Bank did not provide an opportunity to Naresh Goyal to represent thereby violating the rule of audi alteram partem, and consequently, quashed the impugned notice. [Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal v. Bank of India, Writ Petition (L) No. 26973 of 2025, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | S. 15(3) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act held to be directory; Tenant ordered to plant and maintain 11 trees till disposal of application
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Rent Tribunal’s order dated 08-07-2025, refusing to take his evidence affidavit on record due to a slight delay, the Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Court held that Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘2001 Act’) is directory and not mandatory. The Court directed the Tribunal to take the affidavit on record, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 2,000, planting 11 shady plants, and looking after them till the disposal of the application. [Girdhar Gopal v. Sanwarmal Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4948, decided on 11-09-2025]
Read more HERE
SCHOOLS
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘School cannot assert ownership over playground without title deed’; Company allowed to use the land for football practice
The present set of petitions were filed by a Company and a student’s father, respectively, in relation to the ownership of a playground used by the CA Higher Secondary School (‘CA HSS’). The Company claimed ownership over the land stating that it intended to use it as a practice ground for its football club, while the student’s father alleged that the property should be used as a playground for the students’ benefit. A Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J., while allowing the Company’s petition held that the Company had established its ownership by producing the required documents and its possession could not be permitted to be disturbed by unlawful acts of persons who had no right over the property, and consequently, dismissed the other petition. [Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 8785]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘RTE Act and RPwD Act not applicable to Sainik Schools’: Rejection of student’s admission for failing medical fitness norms, upheld
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (‘AISSAC’), insofar as it prescribed the eye standards of the SOP for admission to Class VI, was null and void in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner had also sought direction to admit him in Class VI at Sainik School, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. The Single Judge Bench of G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J. said that the petitioner, having accepted the SOP for AISSAC and having appeared for the entrance examination, could not subsequently challenge the SOP after receipt of the medical report. It was further held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act were not applicable to the Sainik school, since it was administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence. The Court noted that such schools had been established with the specific purpose of acting as feeder institutes for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy. Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the SOP for AISSAC 2025 and held that the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. [M.R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 7226, decided on 22-09-2025]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Exploitative undertakings from employees to not claim any arrears are void ab initio’; Unceremonious termination condemned
In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of an order, passed by the Director, Department of Local Self Government (‘Respondent 2’), denying petitioner’s claim to include his previous term of service for the purposes of increment and pensionary benefits, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., held that exploitative undertakings taken from employees to not claim any arrears were void ab initio since no employee could be forced to contract out of his statutory rights. Further, the Court stated that the State and its instrumentalities, as employers, should lead as examples and not abuse the power as per their whims. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and stated that the petitioner would be entitled to count past service and other benefits towards regularization and calculation of pension. [Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 28761 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 25-9-2025]
Read more HERE
SMUGGLING
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Commission would interfere with PMLA investigations’, Stay affirmed on State-ordered judicial inquiry into ED in UAE Gold Smuggling Case
The present intra-Court appeal assailed the interim order dated 11-08-2021, passed by the Single Judge, wherein the judicial inquiry ordered by the State of Kerala (‘State Government’), to investigate the involvement of the officers of the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) in implicating the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other political leaders in the UAE Gold Smuggling case, was stayed. The Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ., dismissed the State Government’s appeal observing that the Commission of Inquiry was only a fact-finding body and it would derail the course of justice to permit it to run parallel to the pending Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) proceedings. The Court upheld the stay on the judicial inquiry ordered by the State government to investigate alleged attempts by central agencies, including the ED and Customs, to implicate Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other political leaders in the UAE gold smuggling case. [State of Kerala v. Enforcement Directorate, WA No. 1532 of 2021, decided on 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | WhatsApp evidence and money trail: Bail died in cocaine smuggling syndicate case
In the present application, the applicant sought bail in a case registered alleging offences under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, and 54, read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). He claimed that the implication was based solely on statements made by the co-accused and his wife, with no recovery of contraband or money trail. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., while dismissing the bail application, held that even without relying on the statements made by the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the circumstantial evidence dissuaded the Court from granting bail. The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had not committed the offence. [Syed Sameer Hussain v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3360, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
