This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as socio-educational survey, domestic cricket tournaments, Trauma Centres at Nathdwara, condonation of Advocate’s conduct, Redemption of Mortgage disputes, rape and human trafficking, accused lacks permanent residence, encroachments at Tughlakabad Fort, Psychiatric evaluation of former CRPF personnel, Surrogacy and Egg Donation Programs, digital fraud case, technology boon misused, Notice returned ‘unclaimed’, Wife ill-treating stepchildren, mental cruelty against husband, Freedom of movement is not absolute, Planted vehicle claim rejected, ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ post, , sanctity of Nepali language, ‘District-wise’ appointment of Chowkidar, Self-acquired property of Mitakshara Hindu, SIT for Karur Stampede Probe, disparaging remarks by Single Judge, medical insurance claim, Men’s illegal prosecution by women, accounts of Anil Ambani held ‘Fraud’, Asst. Controller’s mechanical approach, Royal titles ‘Maharaj’ and ‘Princess’, ‘BARBIE’ trade mark dispute, ‘BROCODE’ trade mark dispute, ‘JIO’ trade mark dispute, YouTuber Praveen Aminigadda, trade secret, Ajaz Khan and more.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Blanket stay on socio-educational survey of State population declined; voluntary participation and data confidentiality directed
In a set of writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the government orders directing the conduct of a social and educational survey of the populace of the State and praying for ad-interim orders to restrain the government and the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission (‘Commission’) from proceeding with the survey, the Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru, CJ*, and C M Joshi, J., while declining to grant a blanket stay on the survey issued directions to the State to immediately modify the methodology to ensure that participation and disclosure of information are purely voluntary and not obligatory. The Court further directed that the participants be informed that disclosure of any information is purely voluntary and in case of a participant declining to participate no further steps to be taken to pressurize the participant, in any manner, to divulge any information or his identity. [Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Maha Sabha (Regd) v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 19795, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Interim relief to OCI cardholders challenging BCCI’s ban on their participation in domestic cricket tournaments denied
An interim application was filed by the petitioners to seek mandatory injunction against the resolution passed by Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’) which allowed only Indian citizens to play in the domestic cricket tournaments. The Division Bench of Advait M. Sethna andM. S. Sonak, JJ., held that no prima facie case of manifest arbitrariness had been made out, since the clear objective behind the resolution passed by BCCI was to pool the players who could play for the National Cricket Team wherein only Indian national were allowed to play. The Court also opined that the impact of granting such interim relief to the petitioners on the players on the players who were Indian citizens, was unknown. Therefore, the Court refused to grant the interim mandatory injunction to the petitioners. [Kevin Kartik v. BCCI, W.P.(L) No. 22903 of 2025 decided on: 26-9-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | State Government directed to establish Trauma Centres at Nathdwara
In a review petition filed by the Nathdwara Temple Board against an earlier order dated 03-10-2017, seeking a modification of Direction Nos. 8 and 10 of the previous order, concerning the setting-up of a Trauma Centre and a National Level Institution for Art and Culture at Nathdwara, the Division Bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur and Anuroop Singhi, JJ., held that the primary responsibility for the development of these establishments rests with the State Government/State functionaries. The Court clarified that the Temple Board is under a bounden duty to provide all necessary assistance, including financial assistance, given its major role. Accordingly, the Court modified the original directions to reflect the division of responsibility. [Nathdwara Temple Board v. Dhirendra Manaharbhai Tharanariwala, D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 46/2018 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2858/2004, decided on 03-10-2025]
Read more HERE
ADVOCATE’S CONDUCT
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Using mobile phone while arguing is discourteous and unprofessional’: Advocate’s conduct condoned.
While hearing a petition filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), when his counsel began searching information on his mobile phone while arguing, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth J. criticized his conduct and held that it was unacceptable, discourteous and unprofessional to use mobile phone while addressing the arguments in the Court. [Ravneet Singh Sandhu v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 10515, decided on 19-9-2025]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Courts can decide arbitrability of disputes under Section 8 Arbitration Act; Redemption of Mortgage disputes held non-arbitrable
The present interim application was filed by Defendants 1 to 4 (collectively ‘appellants’), in a commercial suit relating to money recovery and the enforcement of mortgage, for reference to arbitration, but the plaintiff contended that since the enforcement of a mortgage could be tried only by a Civil Court, the said application should be rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., while rejecting the application, observed that the Court had the power under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), to decide whether the subject-matter of the suit was arbitrable or not. The Court held that since the matter pertained to redemption of mortgage, which was not arbitrable, the said matter could not be referred to arbitration in absence of an arbitration agreement. [Divya Enterprise v. Capri Global Capital Ltd., Interim Application (L) No. 25700 of 2025, decided on 09-10-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Bail to advocate accused of rape and human trafficking denied
In a regular bail application filed by an advocate regarding an FIR filed against him under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2), 370, 419 & 120 B of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 3 and 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (“POCSO”), the Single Bench of Vishal Mishra, JJ., rejected the application, holding that the allegations of human trafficking and rape required further investigation. [A v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Misc. Criminal Case No. 43436 of 2025, decided on 27-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Denying bail solely because accused lacks permanent residence is miscarriage of justice
In a petition filed by the accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail which was opposed on the ground that he did not have a permanent abode, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara, J., held that in today’s era of highly speculative and inflated property prices that were largely unaffordable, many people could not afford to buy properties. The Court further stated that when such individuals were arraigned as accused, it would be a miscarriage of justice to deny them bail solely because they lacked permanent residence. Further, adding such indispensable criterion to the purpose and objectives of bail would give it a narrow meaning. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the accused. [Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 39682 of 2025, decided on 30-9-2025]
Read more HERE
CASTE ABUSE
PATNA HIGH COURT | FIR noting ‘villagers assembled’ satisfies caste abuse taking place in public view
In a criminal appeal filed by appellants challenging the order dated 27-03-2023 whereby cognizance was taken against the appellants under Sections 147, 341, 447, 323, 379, 354, 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Sections 3(i) (r) (s) (w)/3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), the Single-Judge Bench of Alok Kumar Pandey, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out. The Court observed that the First Information Report (‘FIR’) explicitly recorded that villagers assembled upon hearing the commotion which satisfies the abuse taking place in ‘public view’ under the SC/ST Act. reasoned that the argument that the caste abuse was not ‘in public view’ had no substance, as the First Information Report (‘FIR’) explicitly recorded that villagers had assembled upon hearing the commotion thereby satisfying the essential ingredient of the offence of. [Mukti Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.5231 of 2023, decided on: 26-09-2025]
Read more HERE
COMMITTEE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Committee constituted to supervise removal of encroachments at Tughlakabad Fort
While hearing a batch of petitions regarding the unlawful constructions and encroachments around the Tughlakabad Fort, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela, J, held that the encroachments around the Tughlakabad Fort must be removed to ensure that the historical heritage of the country is preserved for posterity. [S.N. Bhardwaj Advocate v. Archaeological Survey of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6319, decided on 24-9-2025]
Read more HERE
COURT’S JURISDICTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Application for amendment of plaint affecting Court’s jurisdiction and application for return of plaint to be considered simultaneously
The present petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court wherein the issue was whether the application for amendment of a plaint would be first decided, prior to rendering its decision on an application for return of the plaint filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Valmiki Menezes, J., stated that the Trial Court should have considered the amendment application and the application for rejection or return of plaint, simultaneously. The Court further stated that the Trial Court ought to have examined simultaneously whether the amendment application, if granted, would change the nature of the suit and bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. If the Court inherently lacked the jurisdiction and the amendment was made to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Court, then such amendment application should be rejected. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and directed Trial Court to consider the averments made in the plaint as they stood when the plaint was brought before the Court, while also considering the effect of the amendment, if allowed. [Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3600, decided on: 25-9-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Psychiatric evaluation of former CRPF personnel who allegedly under alcohol influence beat his wife to death for not serving meal directed
In the present bail application, the applicant, a former CRPF personnel, sought bail in connection with offences in which he was accused of beating his wife to death while under the influence of liquor, allegedly because she could not provide a meal as per his immediate demand. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J., while disposing of the application, emphasised that if such mentally ill persons are released on bail, they continue their illegal acts and pose a constant threat due to their propensity to commit crimes against society, particularly against family members who were weaker sections and unable to confront them. Therefore, instead of releasing such persons on bail without proper treatment and rehabilitation, it is beneficial to treat them for their mental illness in the interest of society’s safety. Thus, the Court directed the Nanded District Jail Authority to send the applicant for psychiatric evaluation at the Civil Hospital and if found mentally ill due to liquor addiction, he was to be treated in a government rehabilitation centre until full recovery, as per the Mental Healthcare Act. The Court further instructed District Superintendent of Police to provide escort for the treatment. [Pramod Wamanrao Dhule v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3568, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Single trial ordered in a case with multiple charge-sheets; first charge-sheet to be treated as principal and others as supplementary
The present petition challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court which had held the five different charge-sheet as maintainable even though the said charge-sheets arose from same transaction and against same accused and formed the basis for the registration of 5 different cases. A Single Judge Bench of Valmiki Menezes, J., held that as per the provisions of Section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) the Sessions Court shall try all five charge-sheets under one trial at which witnesses arraigned in all five charge-sheets shall be examined in a single trial. It was opined that the first charge-sheet shall be treated as principal charge-sheet while the other as supplementary. Thus, the Court opined that the Sessions Court had no reason to register separate cases by the bifurcation of the charge-sheet and accordingly, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court. [Ameet Savant v. State of Goa, Crl. W.P. No. 69 of 2025, decided on: 30-9-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | “We are aghast and shocked”; Concern expressed over potential exploitation of poor women in Surrogacy and Egg Donation Programs
In a case concerning alleged illegal practices surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technology (‘ART’) and the exploitation of women under the guise of egg donation, the division bench of Devan Ramachandran* and M.B. Snehalatha, JJ. expressed concern and shock over the alleged exploitation of women who were reportedly brought into the State under the guise of ART programs, purportedly as egg donors or prospective surrogate mothers. [Art Bank v. State Police Chief of Kerala, WP(CRL.) No. 1035 of 2025(S), decided on 29-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Conviction converted from murder to culpable homicide of father who inflicted fatal blow on son neck
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused father, against the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for infliction of fatal blow on his son’s neck with a sharp edged tool, a Division Bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur* and Anuroop Singhi, JJ., partly allowed the appeal observing that in ordinary circumstances, no parent would cause fatal injury to their children, howsoever frustrated or dejected he or she may be. The Court, while setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, held that there was no intention or pre-meditation to cause death. Consequently, the conviction was converted to one under Section 304 Part II IPC and the accused was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. [Laxman Das v. State, D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 274/2019, decided on 03-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DETENTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Detention order served after unexplained delay of 11 months quashed; State directed to pay Rs 2 Lakhs as compensation
In the present petition, the petitioner, who was the original detenue, challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, alleging it was deliberately withheld and served only after his release on bail, nearly 11 months later, despite being in judicial custody at the time of issuance. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar*, JJ., while allowing the petition held that the criminal proceedings, which formed the basis of the impugned detention action, resulted in the petitioner being kept in illegal detention for over a year, thus affecting his fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasised that the authorities abused the preventive detention law, an extraordinary measure meant to be used sparingly against genuine threats to public order. [Dikshant v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3484, decided on 01-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DIGITAL FRAUD
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Technology boon effectively misused to evade law enforcement’: Pre-arrest bail denied in digital fraud case
In an application filed by the applicant-accused seeking pre-arrest bail in alleged digital fraud of Rs 1,75,00,000, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., while dismissing the same, held that such serious crimes of digital manipulation were on the rise and involved intricate methods and multiple communication devices to mislead unsuspecting victim which required thorough investigation. The Court stated that such a requirement ought not to be curtailed by granting a pre-arrest bail considering how difficult it had gotten to crack such cases due to the boon of technology misuse. [Mohit v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. No. 3721 of 2025, decided on 25-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | S. 138 NI Act action against Directors continues despite prior initiation of IBC proceedings
The present writ petition was filed challenging the common orders (‘impugned orders’) of the 10th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur (‘Trial Court’), dated 31-01-2025. By the first order, the Court discharged the original accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’), and by the second order the Court had held that, in view of that discharge, the complaint was not maintainable against the remaining accused persons. A Single Judge Bench of M.M. Nerlikar, J., while observing that the Courts below had passed the orders in ignorance of the Supreme Court’s decision that natural persons could not escape their liability under the NI Act because of ongoing insolvency proceedings, quashed and set aside the impugned orders. [Ortho Relief Hospital and Research Centre v. Anand Distilleries, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3580, decided on 01-10-2025]
Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Enjoying personal life with expensive bikes”: Relief denied to husband who shirked responsibility of wife and unwell child
In a set of two cross-revision petitions filed by a wife under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (“FCA”) against the Family Court order whereby Rs 15,000 were awarded to the wife and Rs 7,000 and 12,000 to her two minor children respectively, while the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., dismissed the wife’s petition, holding that the argument for enhancement of the maintenance amount had no strength, it also dismissed the husband’s petition holding that the husband failed to fulfil his bounden duty to maintain his wife and child. [A v. B, Criminal Revision No. 3235 of 2024, decided on 22-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No proof of subsisting first marriage; Maintenance for wife under S. 125 CrPC upheld
In the present petition, the husband challenged the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge granting Rs 4,000 per month maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). He alleged that their marriage was invalid as the wife had used a forged death certificate of her previous husband, which made her not entitled to maintenance. A Single Judge Bench of M.M. Nerlikar, J., while dismissing the petition held that assuming the death certificate was forged, that alone was not sufficient to deny the wife’s claim. The Court emphasised that the husband failed to show the wife’s earlier marriage was still in existence, and merely stating the death certificate was forged did not prove her previous husband was alive. [Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan v. Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan, Criminal Writ Petition No. 942 of 2018, decided on 07-10-2025]
Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Notice returned ‘unclaimed’ held not valid service; Ex-parte divorce decree was sets aside
In a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant husband against the ex-parte decree dated 15-09-2023 passed by the Family Court which allowed the respondent-wife’s application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘1955 Act’) and granted a decree of divorce, the Division Bench of Dinesh Mehta* and Sandeep Taneja, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the service of summons, which was returned with the postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’, did not constitute a valid and effective service in the absence of tender to the addressee or his authorized agent. The Court set aside the ex-parte decree, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. [X v. Y, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1888/2023, decided on 19-09-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Wife ill-treating stepchildren constitutes mental cruelty against husband under S. 10(1)(x) Divorce Act: divorce upheld
The present appeal and revision petition was preferred against the common judgment passed by the Family Court, by which the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage and the wife’s case for maintenance were allowed. The Division Bench of Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ., while allowing the divorce, observed that mistreating children amounted to mental cruelty against the husband under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (‘Divorce Act’). However, after considering the nature of husband’s job, the Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs 6000 to Rs 15,000. [X v. Y, Mat. Appeal No. 596 of 2019, decided on 06-10-2025]
Read more HERE
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Freedom of movement is not absolute’; Interference in Western Coalfields’ order declaring ex-employee as Persona-Non-Grata declined
The instant writ petition was filed, challenging the order passed by Western Coalfields Limited (respondents), declaring an ex-employee (petitioner), as persona-non-grata. The Division Bench of Rajnish R. Vyas* and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., noted that the petitioner had filed multiple frivolous cases against the officials of the respondent and had even tried to blackmail and harass them, therefore, he could not be given free hand to visit the public offices as it would affect the public administration. The Court opined that if the petitioner, being a social activist, needed to file complaints, he could do so by post or by electronic means. Furthermore, the Court held that the fundamental right to travel throughout the country, guaranteed under the Constitution was not absolute and was subject to reasonable restriction which would be applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the Court held that the order passed by the respondent against the petitioner did not warrant any interference. [Kishor v. Western Coalfields Ltd., W.P. No. 1627 of 2025, decided on: 6-10-2025]
Read more HERE
INSURANCE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Planted vehicle claim rejected, and compensation modified to Rs 7.10 Lakh for injured RPF Constable
In the present application, the Insurance Company (appellant) challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs 7.60 lakh granted to a Head Constable (claimant) injured in a motor accident involving a Bullet motorcycle, alleging that the vehicle was planted and the compensation was excessive. Simultaneously, the claimant, referring to medical expenses and disability-related income loss, filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement. A Single Judge Bench of V. Narasingh, J., while disposing of the application and cross-objection, found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s findings. The Court analysed the claim on the touchstone of just compensation and considering the claimant’s age and loss of amenities of life, reduced the compensation to Rs 7.10 lakh with 7 per cent interest from the date of filing till realisation. [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Pattnaik, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3684, decided on 01-10-2025]
Read more HERE
INTEGRITY OF INDIA
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Forwarding ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ post does not endanger sovereignty, unity, integrity of India
In a bail application filed by a man accused of being a separatist for forwarding a post regarding ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, the Single Judge Bench of Santosh Rai, J., allowed the application, holding that merely posting a message supporting any country would not attract the ingredients of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). [Sajid Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 6277, decided on 25-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction to Telugu Actor Nagarjuna in Personality Rights case granted; Misuse of his name, image, and voice without consent restrained
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the popular actor Akkineni Nagarjuna for protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image and persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Akkineni Nagarjuna and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites and disseminating content that violated his Personality Rights. [Akkineni Nagarjuna v. Bfxxx.org, C.S. (COMM) No. 1023 of 2025, decided on 25-9-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘The Art of Living’ Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Personality Rights protected
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the plaintiff, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar sought protection of his Personality Rights, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted a John Doe injunction in favor of Ravi Shankar restricting Defendant 1 from creating and disseminating AI generated videos of the plaintiff. [Ravi Shankar v. John Doe, CS(COMM) No. 889 of 2025, decided on 26-8-2025]
Read more HERE
PROTECTION OF LANGUAGE
SIKKIM HIGH COURT | Sikkim High Court issues directions to preserve and protect the linguistic integrity and sanctity of Nepali language
In the present case, a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) was filed by a retired Government graduate teacher in the Nepali language (‘petitioner’), for seeking urgent and effective judicial intervention to safeguard the linguistic integrity, constitutional sanctity and academic accuracy of the Nepali language, as it was being taught and propagated within the State of Sikkim by the Sikkim University (“Respondent 1’). The Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder, CJ*., and Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., found the petitioner’s grievance bona fide and held that even if educational institutions made minor distortions while imparting Nepali language, such distortions could compromise with the linguistic integrity and academic accuracy of the language and could also cause a direct impact on the delicate distinction between the Nepali language and other languages where the script was common. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the PIL and formulated directions to preserve and protect the linguistic integrity and sanctity of the Nepali language. [Dhan Raj Gurung v. Sikkim University, 2025 SCC OnLine Sikk 105, decided on 24-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEMENT
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘District-wise’ appointment of Chowkidar upheld; Claims for ‘Beat-wise’ appointment rejected.
The present petitions were filed by petitioners, who applied for the post of ‘Chowkidar’, for quashing the public notice whereby the merit list of selected candidates was declared as per ‘District-wise’ and not ‘Beat-wise’. The Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, CJ., and Rajesh Shankar, J., stated that from the language used in the Rules, 2015, it was clear that a ‘Chowkidar’ who was resident of a ‘Beat’ concerned could be appointed/transferred to another ‘Beat’ for a cogent reason. Further, the Court emphasized that the advertisement itself did not specify that the appointment on the post of ‘Chowkidar’ would be made ‘Beat-wise’ but the Rules, 2015 did stipulate that the appointment would be made ‘District wise’. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition. [Pintu Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3342, decided on 19-9-2025]
Read more HERE
PROPERTY DISPUTE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Self-acquired property of Mitakshara Hindu who died before 1956 devolves solely upon his male heir
The present appeal was filed by the appellants against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court (‘Trial Court’), in a partition suit, by which the suit was dismissed holding that the property in question was not partible and that the son was entitled to convey the property to the defendants via a sale deed. The Division Bench of Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ., dismissed the appeal and observed that the separate property of a Hindu who was governed by the Mitakshara law would devolve only upon his son and not his daughter or her legal heirs and agreed with the Trial Court’s view that the property was not subject to partition. [Sivananda Prabhu v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu & Brothers, RFA No. 62 of 2011, decided on 29-09-2025]
Read more HERE
RAPE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | ‘Trial Court justified to declare trial futile after prosecutrix turns hostile and no incriminating evidence is adduced’: Acquittal in rape case was acquitted
The present application was filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Fast Track Court, Doda (‘Trial Court’), and seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against acquittal. Through a separate application, the State also prayed for leave to file the acquittal appeal. The Trial Court, by its order dated 30-07-2022, had acquitted the accused persons of offences under Sections 366, 376, 344, 147, and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (‘RPC’). The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar*, JJ., dismissed the prayer for condonation of delay and declined to grant the leave to file acquittal appeal, observing that the State could not demonstrate any compelling circumstance warranting the grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal after the prosecutrix turned hostile and there was lack of further evidence. [State (UT of J&K) v. Shah Din, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 987, decided on 30-09-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Trial Court slammed for granting bail to gang rape accused based on his upcoming marriage
In the present application, the State had sought recall of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, wherein the Sessions Court had enlarged the accused, who was alleged to have committed the offence of gang rape, on bail, subject to the ground that his marriage was scheduled in the near future. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., while cancelling the bail, held that the offence was that of gang rape and that the alleged acts attributed to the accused were heinous in nature. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the Trial Court had ignored the relevant material available on record and had failed to consider the gravity of the offence. [State of Maharashtra v. XYZ, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3575, decided on 30-09-2025]
Read more HERE
PUBLIC SAFETY
MADRAS HIGH COURT | SIT for Karur Stampede Probe as Court criticizes TVK leaders for fleeing scene and failing to express regret
In the present petition, where the petitioner sought a direction to the State to consider his representation for framing Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOP’) to regulate roadshows, following a tragic incident at Karur where 41 people lost their lives during a permitted political event of the Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (‘TVK’), a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., while disposing of the petition, held that although the Court was aware that the political party was not arrayed as a respondent, it was incumbent upon such a party to have taken immediate steps to rescue and assist individuals caught in the stampede-like situation arising from the massive crowd, in which many children, women, and several young persons had tragically lost their lives. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to constitute a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation. [P.H.Dinesh v. State of TN, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 7501, decided on 03-10-2025]
Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Participating in conspiracy to disturb peace and communal harmony; Charges against two accused in cross-border terror plot reinstated
In the present appeal, the order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge, NIA) (‘Trial Court’) was challenged whereby the accused were discharged regarding the accusation of preparation to commit terrorist acts, as the prosecution’s evidence was not admissible. The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, observed that the Trial Court’s finding of no evidence was incorrect and at the charge stage it should not have probed the evidence exhaustively, but only determined whether the record disclosed a grave suspicion which justified framing charges. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court for it to return a finding whether charges could be framed. [State (UT of J&K) v. Mohd. Anas, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 978, decided on 30-09-2025]
Read more HERE
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Absolutely uncalled for & violation of Supreme Court’s directions”: Read why disparaging remarks passed by its Single Judge Bench against District Judge were deprecated
In a suo motu case registered against two orders passed by a Coordinate Single Judge Bench (‘the Single Bench’) wherein the Single Bench had passed damning and disparaging remarks against the Trial Court, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Pradeep Mittal, JJ., directed the Registrar General, Madhya Pradesh High Court, to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court within 10 days from the date of this order, holding that the said orders were untouchable by the Court. It was only the discretion of the Supreme Court, if it so deems fit, to consider the said orders judicially. [Court on its own motion v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7074, decided on 22-09-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Unwarranted and Inappropriate”: Judicial officers ordered to avoid recording of filthy language and abusive words in pleadings
In a revision petition filed against the impugned order wherein the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) rejected the petitioner’s complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) holding lack of cogent evidence against the accused persons, the Single Judge Bench of Harvir Singh, J., rejected the petition, holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Noting that the literal abusive language had been mentioned in the witness statements and impugned order, the Court directed that all judicial officers shall avoid the usage of such language in the pleadings. [Santreepa Devi v. State of UP, Criminal Revision No. 4710 of 2024, decided on 10-09-2025]
Read more HERE
MEDICAL INSURANCE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Denial of medical insurance claim violates Article 21 of Constitution’; LIC rejection orders quashed
In two writ petitions filed against the partial denial and subsequent complete rejection of insurance claims by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (‘LIC’), the petitioners sought to quash the impugned rejection orders. The Single Judge Bench of P.M. Manoj, J. held that the denial of insurance claims for necessary medical treatment constitutes a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [Dr. AM Muraleedharan v. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 8566, decided on 08-09-2025]
Read more HERE
MEN RIGHTS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | PIL seeking creation of law to protect men from illegal prosecution by women rejected
In a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) filed seeking a direction to the Union to make a law/act for protection of men from illegal prosecution and other harassment by women, the Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ., and Kshitij Shailendra, J., rejected the PIL, holding that except for reference to certain news items, wholly cursory averments were made. Thus, no case was made out in the petition for entertaining it as a PIL. [Chandrama Vishvakarma v. Union of India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2985 of 2025, decided on 24-09-2025]
Read more HERE
NON-PERFORMING ASSETS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Order passed by SBI declaring accounts of Anil Ambani and Reliance Communication Ltd (RCOM) as ‘Fraud’ upheld
The instant writ petition was filed by Anil Ambani (petitioner), challenging the order of State Bank of India (‘SBI’), which categorised the loan accounts of Anil Ambani and Reliance Communications Limited (‘RCOM’) as ‘fraud’. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., held that that the said order was not violative of the Master Guidelines 2024 as it gave multiple opportunities to the Anil Ambani to present his case but he did not make any representation or sent any letter to SBI. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that audi alteram partem does not mean that a person has the right to personal hearing. The Court pointed out that Anil Ambani was given multiple opportunities to present his case and was thus satisfied that the requirement of following the principle of natural justice was followed by SBI. Additionally, the Court opined that since Anil Ambani had control over RCOM and that the Annual Reports of RCOM for the relevant years referred him as the “Promoter” and “person having control”, therefore, he automatically became liable to penal measures. and be reported as fraud. [Anil Ambani v. SBI, W.P. No.3037 of 2025, decided on: 3-10-2025]
Read more HERE
PATENT
DELHI HIGH COURT | Process patent registration remanded for fresh consideration; Asst. Controller’s mechanical approach and lack of application of mind flagged
In the present case, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgement passed by the Single Judge upholding the order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (‘AC’), whereby the appellant’s application for registration of a process patent was rejected. The Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Ajay Digpaul, JJ., stated that order passed by the AC gave rise to a legitimate grievance of the adoption of a mere mechanical approach, uninformed by any serious application of mind. The Court stated that both the Single Judge, as well as the AC failed to notice that the process was not merely for recovering potassium sulphate, but also for recovering other valuable products from spent wash and the mere fact that potassium sulphate could be one of the products that finally emerged from the process that the appellant sought to patent couldn’t result in the two processes being the same. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgement and remanded the application back to the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (‘Controller General’) for fresh consideration and determination. [Tapas Chatterjee v. Controller, Patents and Designs, LPA No. 836 of 2023, decided on 6-10-2025]
Read more HERE
TITLE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Deletion of Royal titles ‘Maharaj’ and ‘Princess’ from cause title directed
In a writ petition filed by the petitioners, the Single Judge Bench of Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J., directed the petitioners to file a correct amended cause title deleting the prefixes ‘Maharaj’ and ‘Princess’ from the names of all parties. The Court held that failure to comply with this direction within one week would automatically lead to the dismissal of the writ petitions without further reference to the Court. [Maharaj Prithviraj v. State. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5163/2001, decided on 03-10-2025]
Read more HERE
TRADE MARK
DELHI HIGH COURT | Relief granted to Mattel over ‘BARBIE’ trade mark dispute
In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by Mattel Inc. for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the trade mark ‘BARBIE’, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the defendant’s marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to that of the plaintiff’s and amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘BARBIE’ trade mark till further notice. [Mattel Inc. v. Padum Borah, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6312, decided on 8-9-2025]
Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Bro Code’ alcoholic beverage makers ordered to not make infringement threats over Ravi Mohan Studio’s upcoming film ‘BROCODE’
In the present application, Ravi Mohan Studios (P) Ltd. (plaintiff), sought a declaration that using the title “BROCODE” for its upcoming film did not violate the trademark rights of Indo Bevs (P) Ltd. (defendant), and requested an injunction to prevent threats or interference with the film’s production and promotion. A Single Judge Bench of V. Lakshminarayanan, J., while issuing a temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff, restrained the defendant from issuing or making groundless threats or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s production, publicity, marketing, distribution, exhibition, and release of the film titled “BROCODE”. The Court clarified that, in case notice was not served within the stipulated time, the interim order would not be extended beyond the period of three weeks. [Ravi Mohan Studios (P) Ltd. v. Indo Bevs (P) Ltd., O.A. No.972 of 2025, decided on 03-10-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Ad-interim relief granted to Reliance Industries in trade mark infringement case against ‘JIO’ cab services
The instant interim application was filed by Reliance Industries Limited (plaintiff), for the passing off and infringement of the trade mark ‘JIO’ and the domain name www.jiocabs.com. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that ‘JIO’ was a well-known trade mark, and opined that on examination of rival marks, a strong prima facie case of trade mark infringement had been made out. Thus, the Court held that continued usage of a well-known and protected brand name would cause grave injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court granted ad-interim relief to the plaintiff, and restrained the defendants from use of the domain name www.jiocabs.com and the counterfeit mark ‘JIO’ and any name, mark or label identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark. Additionally, the defendants were also restrained from using pirated artwork of ‘JIO’, in any manner in relation to any other services or goods. [Reliance Industries Limited v. Asif Ahmed, Interim Application (l) No. 28031 of 2025, decided on 7-10-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | YouTuber Praveen Aminigadda restrained from posting content disparaging goodwill of Indospirit’s beverage ‘BROCODE’
In an application filed by Indospirit Beverages Private Limited (‘Indospirit Beverages’) a leading manufacturer of superior quality alcoholic beverages in India, for permanent injunction restraining Praveen Aminigadda , a YouTuber, from trade mark infringement of ‘BROCODE’ as he had uploaded a video disparaging goodwill of Indospirit Beverage ‘BROCODE’ , a Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J., restrained Praveen Aminigadda, its agents and representatives from publishing, circulating, uploading or otherwise disseminating the said video on various social media platforms, including but not limited to the YouTube channel. The Court stated that the actions attributed to Praveen Aminigadda were detrimental to the distinctive character of the Indospirit Beverages’ trade mark ‘BROCODE’ as the same was deployed for disparagement of a lawfully marketed product and further listed the matter on 4-2-2026. [Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Google LLC, CS(COMM) No. 1037 of 2025, decided on 6-10-2025]
Read more HERE
TRADE SECRET
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | “Cannot claim protection of vague, generalized plans”; Blanket injunction in trade secret dispute was set aside
In an appeal arising out of an order dated 3-10-2024, wherein the commercial Court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from causing breach of confidential information through commercial exploitation and dissemination of any proprietary confidential information, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya* and Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ, opined that a claim of trade secret infringement required that the information claimed to be a trade secret is clearly identifiable, defined and specific. Thus, the Court set aside the blanket injunction granted by the commercial Court stating that it was based on a vague and generalized body of details which was against the contours of trade secret protection law. [Venkateshwarlu Guduru v. Siddhardha De Bathula, COMCA No. 17 of 2025, decided on 26-9-2025]
Read more HERE
