This week’s roundup travels across High Courts to discuss important cases such as, celebrity AI deepakes, Advocate’s conduct in Court, bank’s right to mortgage under SARFAESI Act, third-party rights in property dispute, ‘WOW! MOMOS’ trade mark, and more.
ADVOCATES
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | “Apology is accepted; he deserves a chance”; expunged Contempt remarks against advocate over hooliganism in open Court, expunged
In a petition filed by a practicing advocate (‘petitioner’) for modification of order passed by this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3245 (‘Anil Kumar case’) condemning hooliganism made in open Court by him upon rejection of anticipatory bail, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., held that the apology given by the petitioner in person was a sincere apology, thus, it was accepted. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and requested the Jharkhand State Bar Council to not proceed against the petitioner. [Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. M.P. No. 3017 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Lawyer’s activities not commercial in nature; using residential premises as lawyer’s office not misuse’; 22-year-old complaint quashed
The present petition was filed by a practicing advocate (‘petitioner’) under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of complaint under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (‘NDMC Act’) alleging misuse of premises by running his office without permission from the Chairperson, NDMC. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that classifying the activities of the petitioner as commercial activity was not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and held that there was no misuse of the premises by the petitioner, who had been running his office in terms of the Master Development Plan, 2001, (‘Master Plan’) read with Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983. [B. K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corp., CRL.M.C. No. 4881 of 2005, decided on 8-10-2025] Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral awards carry increased credence when a detailed pre-arbitral process has already been contracted
The present interim application was filed seeking a stay on the arbitral award dated 16-06-2025, till the Commercial Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was disposed of. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., while dismissing the application, held that no such case was made out for an unconditional stay as there was nothing to show that the award was tainted by such perversity that it brooked no deposit for stay on its execution. The Court ordered that the execution proceedings would be stayed, provided the awarded amount and accrued interest were deposited with the Registry within eight weeks. The Court opined that when parties proceed to arbitration after a detailed pre-arbitral process has been contracted, then there must be higher credibility and credence given to the arbitral award. [Mumbai Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. L&T-STEC JV Mumbai, Interim Application (L) No. 28857 of 2025, decided on 10-10-2025] Read more HERE
BAIL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Magistrate’s ‘seen’ remark, without reasoned order, insufficient; Default bail granted for delay in filing chargesheet under S. 187 BNSS
In the present petition, the accused persons challenged the Sessions Court’s order denying their default bail application. They argued that the Investigating Officer failed to file the chargesheet within the mandatory 60-day period under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and that no reasoned order was passed to justify the extension of their judicial custody. A Single Judge Bench of Sachin S. Deshmukh, J., while allowing the petition, held that when the Court extended the detention of the accused persons beyond the prescribed period under the law, it was obligatory for the Court to render a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution vis-à-vis the accused persons. The Court further noted that, to invoke Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to seek an extension of time for filing the chargesheet. [Ranganth Tulshiram Galande v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2025, decided on 07-10-2025] Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
ODISHA HIGH COURT | Technical defects cannot defeat decree execution; Order 21 CPC excludes Res Judicata principle
In the present revision petition, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, which had dropped the execution proceedings arising from a money decree due to procedural defects in the execution application. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to provide him an opportunity to rectify those technical shortcomings and, therefore, sought to have the order set aside. A Single Judge Bench of Ananda Chandra Behera, J., observed that the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable to execution proceedings. Thus, the Court while allowing the petition and setting aside the order, held that the Trial Court had passed the order without giving the petitioner an opportunity to supply the required particulars of the properties indicated in the execution application, in compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11(2) and Appendix (E) No. 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). In view of this procedural lapse, the Court held that the order could not be sustained in law. [Santosh Patra v. State of Orissa, CRP No. 50 of 2024, decided on 09-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | High time to shift paradigm that civil suits can run for decades; Dismissal of civil suit, upheld
In a petition filed by the petitioner to recall respondent for cross-examination by challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby his application under Order 13 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) in the suit for recovery of loan amount, was dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., held that it was high time that paradigm be changed by Courts and an impression across the society be dispelled that civil suits can be allowed to run for decades. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petitioner’s application. [Sohn Singh v. Dildar Singh, CM(M) No. 1998 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Creation of third-party rights in property dispute, restrained; Held that subject property must be preserved pending adjudication
In an appeal challenging dismissal of application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC in a suit for specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell in which one of the clauses stipulated a refund of double the earnest money, Girish Kathpalia, J., directed the respondents to not create third party interest in the subject property as till decision of the appeal, the subject property needs to be preserved. [Rajnish Bhardwaj v Renu Woodbridge, FAO 285/2025, decided on 15-10-2025] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Only strong and cogent evidence warrants summoning a new accused under S. 319 CrPC
In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which rejected his application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for taking cognizance against the respondents, the Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., dismissed the petition holding that the powers under Section 319 of the CrPC are discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The Court found no error in the Trial Court’s reasoning, particularly because the injured in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, had not named the respondents. [Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1414/2025 decided on 06-10-2025] Read more HERE
DEBT, FINANCIAL AND MONETARY LAWS
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘SC/ST Act cannot be invoked to preclude exercise of bank’s rights pertaining to mortgage’
A petition was filed by Axis Bank Ltd. (‘petitioner’) seeking restrain on the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (‘Respondent 1’) from proceeding with any investigation, inquiry or action regarding its entitlement of the mortgaged property under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the SARFAESI Act’). Further, Respondent 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’) alleging commission of atrocities. A Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., held that the SC/ST Act could not be invoked to prevent bank’s rights pertaining to mortgage or security. Accordingly, it stayed the proceedings by Respondent 1 and listed the matter in February 2026. [Axis Bank Ltd. v. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, W.P.(C) No. 16123 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025] Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Juvenile Justice Act prevails over Muslim Personal Law; Adopted child entitled to same status as biological child
In the present petition, the petitioner sought direction for the registering authority to register an adoption deed for a child from within the family, which was allegedly refused on the ground that, being Muslims, the parties were required to follow the procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’) and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 (‘2022 Regulations’), rather than relying on a simple deed. A Single Judge Bench of G. R. Swaminathan, J., while declining to issue the Mandamus, held that under the 2022 Regulations, the District Magistrate not the Court was the competent authority to issue the adoption order, and only upon such issuance can the adoption process be considered complete. The Court further held that a combined reading of Section 1(4) and Section 63 of the JJ Act, considering Article 15(3) of the Constitution, led to the conclusion that the JJ Act prevailed over Muslim Personal Law. [K. Heerajohn v. District Registrar, W.P. (MD) No. 27615 of 2025, decided on 17-10-2025] Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Medical Representative not a workman’; Labour Court order upheld
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 5-9-2018 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Labour Court had held that the petitioner, a medical representative, could not categorized as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J, upheld the impugned order stating that a medical representative would not fall under the definition of a ‘skilled’ worker and would therefore not be covered under the ID Act. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition. [Samarendra Das v. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., W.P.(C) No. 7484 of 2019, decided on 6-10-2025] Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Realistic AI deepfake video targeting Akshay Kumar, condemned; Urgent takedown ordered to protect his personality rights and public safety
In the present application, actor Akshay Kumar sought protection of his personality rights, privacy rights, and the right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while granting ex parte interim relief, held that Akshay Kumar possessed an inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality, and that any unauthorised use constituted a violation of both his personality/publicity rights and his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Court, therefore, directed that such content be removed from the public domain immediately, in both Akshay Kumar’s and the larger public interest. [Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe, Interim Application (L) No. 33184 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Relief granted to WOW! MOMOS; Use of WOW BURGER mark, restrained
In an appeal against the order dated 12-9-2025 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Single Judge of the Court had refused to restrain the use of the mark WOW BURGER by the respondent, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., held that the mark WOW BURGER was deceptively similar to the mark WOW! MOMO. The Court opined that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection was likely to get confused between the marks. Thus, the Court granted an injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark WOW BURGER. [WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger, FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 143 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025] Read more HERE
POCSO
ODISHA HIGH COURT | POCSO Court’s bail denial to school Principal accused of failing to report sexual harassment complaint of student, quashed
In the present application, the petitioner, Principal of Swami Arupananda Higher Secondary School of Education & Technology, Kurtanga, sought bail before the Special Court, Jagatsinghpur, for allegedly failing to report a sexual harassment complaint made by a female student against a Math Lecturer, in violation of Sections 19 and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).
A Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., while allowing the application, quashed the order remanding the petitioner to jail custody by refusing bail and directed his release on bail. The Court held that the Special Court failed to take notice of the allegation and erroneously remanded the petitioner to custody by refusing to grant bail, in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. [Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 10425 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025] Read more HERE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No embargo on production of Call Records/Location Charts if privacy of raiding team/police informers is undertaken’; Preservation allowed in NDPS case
In a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing order passed by Special Judge in FIR under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) whereby his application seeking preservation of Call Detail Records (‘CDRs’) and location charts of the petitioner, the Duty Officer and the members of the raiding team involved at the time of the alleged recovery, seizure and sampling, was dismissed. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., held that there was no embargo on production of CDRs/Location Charts before the Court at an appropriate stage while taking precautions for safety and privacy of raiding team and police informers. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the said order. [Mangal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. No. 6172 of 2025, decided on 10-10-2025] Read more HERE