This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as advocates with criminal antecedents, soft skill training for police officials, Lawyer’s mouth taped protest, import of body massagers or sex toys, Tribunal’s order not advisory, Karthigai Deepam to be lit at Deepathoon, ‘Mahalaxmi’ trademark dispute, ‘Bokashi Bucke’ trademark dispute, Ajay Devgan’s personality rights, directions to curb cybercrimes, Delhi Race Club, India-China relationship, Bail granted to Bhima Koregaon, cyber terrorism charges against Ex-BrahMos engineer, etc.
ADVOCATES
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Advocates with criminal antecedents a potential threat to rule of law: details of criminal cases pending against UP Advocates sought
In a petition filed by the petitioner, a practicing advocate, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged which upheld the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order refusing his request to summon certain police officers in a complaint case, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., held that on several occasions the functioning of the District Judiciary has been adversely affected due to the conduct of certain advocates with criminal antecedents appearing before the Court and even if not frequent, such situations pose a potential threat to the rule of law. The Court, thus, invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and sought comprehensive details of criminal cases pending against advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. [Mohammad Kafeel v. State of UP, Matters under Article 227 No. 12231 of 2025, decided on 26-11-2025] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Most unfortunate incident; police can’t act strongly with lawyers: soft skill training for police officials directed
In a matter where regarding misbehavior and manhandling of a lawyer by the State House Officer (‘SHO’) came up, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, CJ., and Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J., took cognizance of it and held that the incident is most unfortunate and that the lawyer community has been agitated by it. The Court directed soft skill training of the police officials and stated that while the police have to sometime act strongly with the accused, the same cannot be expected from them when they are dealing with the lawyers. [Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23646 of 2025, decided on 2-12-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Lawyer reprimanded appearing in Court with mouth taped in protest
While hearing a contempt petition wherein the counsel for the petitioner had appeared with a red tape on his lips, the Division bench of Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Anish Dayal, JJ, expressed their strong displeasure at the conduct of the petitioner. [Court on its own motion v. Delhi Administration THR BDO, CONT. CAS(C) No. 16 of 2016, decided on 1-12-2025] Read more HERE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Teachers’ transfers cannot be politicised; Government directive allowing MPs/MLAs to influence posting decisions quashed
While deciding a batch of petitions filed by government school teachers challenging their transfer orders and a government letter dated 13-05-2025, wherein it was contended that the transfers violated statutory Transfer Guidelines and were influenced by political recommendations of MPs and MLAs, a Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., held that the impugned transfer orders as well as the letter authorising such recommendations were unsustainable in law. The Court quashed both the transfer orders and the letter, directed that the teachers be continued in their original places of posting until the end of the academic year and thereafter restored, and further mandated that all departmental appeals be disposed of within four weeks. [Ranjan Kumar Tripathy v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4166, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | No DCGI approval required for import of body massagers or sex toys used for General Wellness
In a review petition filed by the respondents, Customs Department under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking review of this Court’s order dated 30-10-2025 directing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to conduct an inter-ministerial consultation for a uniform policy regarding imports of products declared as body massagers or sex toys, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Shail Jain, JJ., opined that the “petitioners are being harassed unnecessarily” and imposed a Costs of Rs. 25,000/- in each petition, to be deducted from the salary of Assistant Commissioner of Customs. [TECHSYNC v. Superintendent of Customs, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8725, Decided on 21-11-2025] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Tribunal’s order is not advisory or optional’: State called out for not complying with Industrial Tribunal’s order
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction of the respondent-authorities, who, despite the specific directions contained in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, failed to reinstate the petitioner to his post as Bus Conductor, a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., held that the architecture of a Tribunal is not merely administrative in character but is quasi-judicial in its very constitution, thus, orders emanating from such a body are judicial in essence, endowed with authoritative efficacy, and cannot be treated as inconsequential, advisory, or optional for compliance. Considering that petitioner’s service tenure had come to an end, the Court directed that he should be treated as reinstated in service and should be deemed to have been continuously in service for all purposes. [Shyam Sundar Vaishnav v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 6113, decided on 12-11-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Lighting lamp atop hill is a Tamil tradition, can’t offend anybody’s sensibilities’; Karthigai Deepam directed to be lit at Deepathoon
In a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who describe themselves as devotees of Lord Muruga, seeking directions to the temple authorities of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (Ancient Stone Lamp Pillar) located on one of the two peaks of Thirupparankundram Hill, a single-judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., directed the temple management/devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also apart from the usual places. “Lighting a lamp is a sacred act. It cannot offend anybody’s sensibilities.” [Rama Ravikumar v. District Collector, Madurai, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11477, Decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Revisional authority cannot reject condonation of delay application merely because matter reserved for orders
While deciding writ petitions under Section 154B—29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (the “Act”), a Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., held that the revisional authority’s view that no application for condonation of delay can be entertained once the matter is closed for orders was unsustainable. The Court observed that the Act imposes no embargo on filing an application for condonation of delay before the final order is pronounced and emphasised that the lis remains pending until decision. The Court therefore set aside the order and restored the revision applications to the revisional authority. [RNA Mirage Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Writ Petition No. 8675 of 2023, decided on 02-12-2025] Read more HERE
BANKING LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Ombudsman not a toothless division’; RBI directed to strengthen grievance system of banks
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a credit card holder, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents in matter related to credit card fraudulent transactions and grievance system of banks, a single-judge bench of Prathiba M. Singh,* J., refused to engage in factual findings on how the mobile number was changed, noting that it remained “shrouded in mystery,” but issued regulatory directives to the RBI on RBI Ombudsman functioning, mandatory human review, grievance system of banks and strengthening consumer protection against automated-system defaults. [Sarwar Raza v. Ombudsman RBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8677, Decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
COMPETITION LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Challenge to ‘Family Unit’ Cap imposed by Delhi Race Club in Horse racing rejected
While hearing an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Delhi Race Club (‘DRC’) from enforcing the ‘family unit’ cap vis-à-vis horse racing, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, upheld the concept of family unit qua the number of horses that may be owned by a family. The Court held that the purpose of inclusion of such a condition is to prevent monopolization and potential rigging of horse races. Accordingly, the Court refused to grant an interim injunction and dismissed the application. [Ravinder Pal Singh Chauhan v. Delhi Race Club Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8578, decided on 26-11-2025] Read more HERE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Pre-constitutional record decisive; petition against Kunbi caste claim dismissed
While deciding a petition challenging the order of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had validated the caste claim of an individual as belonging to the Kunbi Other Backward Class, and wherein it was contended that the supporting document relied upon was fraudulent, a Division Bench of M. S. Jawalkar and Raj D. Wakode*, JJ., held that the challenge to the document was not sustainable in law and deserved to be rejected, as the caste claim had been proved on the basis of pre-constitutional documentary evidence. The Court, therefore, concluded that the challenge to the order passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (‘Scrutiny Committee’) validating the caste claim towards Kunbi was without merit. [Mangala v. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4779, decided on 28-11-2025] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove ‘untoward incident’ under Railways Act: compensation granted to deceased’s parents
In a case revolving around the question whether the death of a 17-year-old boy, who fell from a moving local train, could be classified as an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act, 1989 (‘Railways Act’), the Railway Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) had dismissed the family’s claim of compensation. However, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., while allowing the appeal, quashed the Tribunal’s order, holding that the incident amounted to an ‘untoward incident’ and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, thereby granting compensation of Rs 4 lakh with interest, subject to a cap of Rs 8 lakh. [Dhondu Sakharam Tambe v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4610, decided on 21-11-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Can’t ignore India-China relationship & Lack of extradition treaty’: bail denied to Chinese national for illegally staying in India
In an application filed by a Chinese national seeking bail in case where he was accused of preparing forged passport and Aadhar card and, tampering with his visa to illegally stay in India., a Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., held that the relationship of India with China and the fact that there was no extradition treaty between the two countries couldn’t be ignored. Therefore, the Court rejected the accused’s application and denied him bail. [Xue Fei@ Koei v. Nil, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7953, decided on 19-11-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bail granted to Bhima Koregaon accused Hany Babu after prolonged incarceration of 5 years
In a bail application filed by the Delhi University professor Hany Babu, who was arrested in 2018 for his alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence case, a Division bench of A.S. Gadkari* and R.R. Bhonsale, JJ., allowed the application and granted bail. [Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency, CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 12301 OF 2024, Decided on 04-11-2025] Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Relief denied to man who allegedly sent message saying consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu
In a writ petition filed by a man who allegedly sent a message asserting an offensive statement like consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu, the Single Judge Bench of Milind Ramesh Phadke, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, prima facie, disclosed ingredients of the alleged offences. [Buddha Prakash Bouddha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 44600 of 2025, decided on 19-11-2025] Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Fresh affidavit sought on all cases of deaths in police custody and transit
While hearing a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) seeking disclosure of all custodial deaths in the State, the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J, held that the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, was incomplete as it only contained data pertaining to deaths in prison or in judicial custody. Thus, the Court directed that a fresh personal affidavit be filed indicating all cases of death in police custody and police transit. [Md Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (PIL) No. 1218 of 2022, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | FIR quashed against AAP leaders in protest over Lakhimpur Kheri incident
In a set of six petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (‘AAP’) leaders seeking quashing of case filed against them concerning Rally as opposed to the incidence at Lakhimpur Khiri in which they were accused of instigating the protest, a Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., held that ingredients of none of the offences could be said to have been made out against any of the petitioners even on the face of it and it is settled law that an FIR can be quashed if it does not prima facie disclose commission of any of the alleged offences by the accused. Accordingly, the Court allowed the present petitions and quashed the FIR against the petitioners. [Aman Arora v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 15549, decided on 29-11-2025] Read more HERE
CYBER LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Investigating Agency cannot debit freeze bank accounts involved in cyber fraud under S. 106 BNSS
In a case wherein the issue was whether an Investigating Agency (‘IA’) has the power to debit freeze a bank account under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the Division Bench of Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., quashed and set aside the orders passed by the IA and held that debit freezing of accounts is not permissible under Section 106, however, it can be done in terms of Section 107 BNSS, and that the banks should act in terms of the Citizen Financial Cyber Frauds Reporting and Management System (‘Management System’). [Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4778, decided on 20-11-2025] Read more HERE
BOMABY HIGH COURT | Espionage & cyber terrorism charges against Ex-BrahMos engineer set aside; life sentence to 3 years imprisonment reduced
In an appeal filed by Ex-BrahMos engineer under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the trial court’s judgment dated 03-06-2024 which convicted the appellant for cyber terrorism under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and espionage under Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) and 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Official Secrets Act), a Division bench of Anil S. Kilor* & Pravin S. Patil, JJ., upheld the conviction for 3 years of imprisonment under Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act and set aside the conviction on all the other charges. [Nishant Agrawal v. Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow, Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024, Decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Present machinery can’t handle traditional cybercrimes, AI/ Deep fake challenges’: Detailed directions to curb cybercrimes issued
In an application filed by petitioner-accused seeking bail in a case where he was accused of extorting Rs. 2,02,00,000 from an elderly couple by putting them under digital arrest, a Single Judge Bench of Ravi Chirania, J., held that present machinery in the State is not well equipped to handle not only the traditional cybercrimes but also the upcoming serious future challenges of artificial intelligence and deep fake and other such technological challenges. Thus, the Court issued directions to the Additional Chief Secretary (‘ACS’), Home, Director General of Police (‘DGP’), Director General (‘DG’), State Crime Record Bureau (‘SCRB’) and Cyber for issuance of necessary notifications, circulars, standard operating procedure (‘SOPs’) etc., to handle the issue of rising cybercrime in State of Rajasthan. [Adnan Haidar Bhai v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 6059, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Phase-wise declaration of Maharashtra Municipal Election results halted; exit polls barred
In the writ petitions challenging the State Election Commission’s actions in deferring elections of certain Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats in Maharashtra and issuing a new schedule from the stage of withdrawal of nomination till declaration of result, a Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ., directed the State Election Commission not to carry out counting or publish the result on 03-12-2025 for polls held on 02-12-2025. [Shakil Hamid Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra, WRIT PETITION NO. 7508 OF 2025, Decided on 02-12-2025] Read more HERE
EMPLOYEMENT LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Art of advocacy is not bound by years of experience: Challenge to AAG’s Appointment dismissed
In a special appeal filed by a practicing advocate challenging the order passed by the Single Judge who dismissed his writ petition challenging minimum requisite experience of practice that Respondent 2 possessed upon his appointment as Additional Advocate General (‘AAG’), the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* Acting CJ. and Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J., held that the art of presentation of a case and the art of advocacy is not bound by years of experience. The Court stated that there should not be any hard and fast rule laid down for appointing any persons such as Advocate General (‘AG’), AAG, or any other government lawyer with a different nomenclature, and it is best left for the litigant to decide. Thus, dismissed the appeal at hand. [Sunil Samdaria v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 6122, decided on 2-12-2025] Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Merit alone counts at Super Speciality level’: plea dismissed for reservation in Assistant Professor posts
While deciding writ petitions filed by reserved category candidates challenging recruitment to Assistant Professor (Super Speciality) posts under the Odisha Medical Education Service (‘OMES’) Cadre, a Single Judge Bench of Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., held that no illegality was committed in issuing the advertisement without reservation. The Court clarified that although Rule 6 read with Rule 3(a) of the Odisha Medical Education Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’) and Section 3 of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies Act, 1975 (‘1975 Act’) mandate reservation for base level posts, such benefit does not extend to super speciality disciplines unless specifically provided by the State. Observing that merit must prevail at this level, the Court found the petitions unsustainable and dismissed them. [Nihar Ranjan Biswal v. State of Orissa, W.P. (C) No. 15074 of 2022, decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Legal heirs of landowners not entitled to project affected persons quota; Future recruitment permitted only if eligibility criteria met
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appointment to the post of Junior Laboratory Chemist under the category of project affected persons, the Division Bench comprising G. S. Kulkarni* and Aarti Sathe, JJ., held the claim to be thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable. The Court noted that reliance on the land acquisition of the petitioner’s grandfather, effected decades earlier, rendered the petitioner ineligible. Emphasising that the advertisement required the petitioner himself to be a project affected person, the Court observed that ancestral acquisition was contrary to its terms. The Court further highlighted that the petition, filed years after cancellation of appointment, suffered from delay and laches and was accordingly rejected without costs. [Nitin Kedu Rajole v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 15859 of 2022, decided on 03-12-2025] Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Status quo order cannot hinder flood mitigation; Eco Park and ponds conceived in larger public interest
In an appeal filed by the State challenging the interim order of “Status Quo” granted in a suit instituted by Madras Race Club (‘Race Club’), which restrained it from carrying out developmental works on government land, a Single Judge Bench of Mohammed Shaffiq, J., held that the order of “Status Quo” hindered and impeded the State from executing projects conceived in larger public interest, namely the strengthening and development of ponds and the creation of an Eco Park. The Court, accordingly, modified the interim order and permitted the State to proceed with the works, emphasising that such projects were environmental and infrastructural measures intended to mitigate floods, promote tourism, improve air quality, and serve as a natural habitat. [State of T.N. v. Madras Race Club, O.S.A. No. 335 of 2025, decided on 25-11-2025] Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Family Court not helpless or powerless to ensure execution of its warrant, provided correct address is supplied
In an intra-court appeal filed against the Single Judge’s order dated 25-07-2025 whereby the Court disposed of the petition seeking the execution of warrant by the police authorities, a Division Bench of Sujoy Paul, ACJ., and Partha Sarathi Sen, J., refused to interfere with the single judge’s order and clarified that the family court itself has sufficient mechanisms to enforce execution of its warrants, provided the correct information is given. [Shahin Parveen v. State of W.B., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9420, Decided on 28-11-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Customary Divorce to be proved with cogent evidence; Delhi HC holds Second Marriage void after woman fails to prove Customary Divorce from Prior Marriage
In an appeal challenging the family’s court decree of divorce, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., upheld the Family Court’s declaration that the appellant’s marriage with respondent 1 was null and void, as the appellant failed to establish that she had obtained a valid customary divorce prior to their marriage. [Sushma v. Rattan Deep, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8663, Decided on 28-11-2025] Read more HERE
INSURANCE LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Insurance policies issued after IRDAI’s 2023 circular containing arbitration clause constitute a valid arbitration agreement
In a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, a Singe Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., held that where an insurance policy issued after the IRDAI Circular dated 27-10-2023 (‘Circular’) continues to incorporate an arbitration clause, the insurer cannot later invoke the Circular to contend that no arbitration agreement exists. The Court accordingly allowed the petition and stated that there was no reason for the respondent, United India Insurance, to enter into the Insurance Policies with the petitioner, Numero Uno Clothing Ltd., containing the arbitration clauses, as the Circular was in existence on 31-1-2024, when the two insurance policies were issued. [Numero Uno Clothing Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8704, decided on 10-11-2025] Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Refusal must be reasoned/justified’; Labour Court’s order refusing advocate representation to a legally untrained person set aside
While deciding a revision application filed by a small laundry employer against the Labour Court’s order refusing permission to appoint an advocate, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., held that such refusal was mechanical and unsustainable. The Court emphasised that under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), representation through an advocate requires both consent of the opposite party and leave of the Court. The Court stated that expecting a small-time laundry proprietor, not legally trained, to conduct cross-examination against union representatives was absurd and would perpetuate inequality. Thus, denying him this right would cause prejudice and result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the employer was permitted to be represented by an advocate of choice. [Bella Vista Drycleaners v. Vishwanath Kanojia, Civil Revision Application No. 94 of 2024, decided on 02-12-2025] Read more HERE
MEDICAL LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Most shocking case in medical history”: Relief denied to distributor who sold Coldrif cough syrup
In a writ appeal filed by a distributor of Coldrif cough syrup against the order whereby his petition against the sealing of his ship and cancellation of his drug license was rejected, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva*, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., dismissed the appeal holding that there was no infirmity in the view taken by the Single Judge or any merit in the appeal. [Rajpal Kataria v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Appeal No. 3259 of 2025, decided on 25-11-2025] Read more HERE
PERSONALITY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim injunction to actor Ajay Devgan in Personality Rights case
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the popular actor Ajay Devgan for protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, 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 Ajay Devgan and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites and disseminating content that violated his Personality Rights. [Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet, C.S.(COMM) No. 1269 of 2025, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
PMLA
DELHI HIGH COURT | Profits earned from illegal cricket betting can be attached as ‘proceeds of crime’ under PMLA
While hearing a batch of six writ petitions challenging the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) in connection with large scale hawala transactions and illegal international cricket betting operations (‘International Cricket Betting Racket’), the Division Bench of *Anil Kshetrapal, J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J, held that profits earned from cricket betting could be attached as ‘proceeds of crime’ under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘Act’). Thus, the Court declined to interfere with the Provisional Attachment Orders (‘PAOs’) and Show Cause Notices (‘SCNs’) issued by the ED. [Naresh Bansal v. Adjudicating Authority, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8672, decided on 24-11-2025] Read more HERE
RELEGIOUS RIGHTS
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Prathalpura’ construction proposal at Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple refunded; future construction compliance guidelines issued
In a petition pertaining to the approval for the award of contract for the construction of ‘Prathalpura’ in Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple, a Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K. V. Jayakumar,* JJ., refused to approve the award of contract for the construction of the Prathalpura and laid down comprehensive guidelines governing future constructions within temple premises. [Travancore Devaswom Board v. Kerala State Audit Dept., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1311, Decided on 28-11-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Devotees permitted to Light Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon; officials held in contempt
In a contempt petition against the violation of earlier court’s order detecting the temple authorities to light the Karthigai Deepam at the lower peak of the hillock (Deepathoon) at Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, a single-judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that the Executive officer had committed contempt and permitted the petitioner to go up the hill and light the Deepam at the Deepathoon. [Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar, Cont.P.(MD) No. 3594 of 2025, Decided on 03-12-2025] Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Comprehensive directions issued for crowd management at Sabarimala during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival
In a suo motu proceedings registered on the basis of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner’s Report concerning crowd management during the 2025—2026 Mandala—Makaravilakku festival, K.V. Jayakumar and Raja Vijayaraghavan V,* JJ., issued the comprehensive directions for crowd management at Sabarimala during Mandala—Makaravilakku season 2025-2026. [In The Matter Of Travancore Devaswom Board — Sabarimala Special Commissioner Report — Sm.No.37/2025 — Regarding The Crowd Management During Mandalamakaravilakku Season 2025-2026, SSCR NO. 37 OF 2025, Decided on 03-12-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Thengalai sect’s exclusive ritual rights at Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram affirmed
In the writ petitions arising out of a more than 200 years old sectarian dispute between two sub-sects of the Srivaishnava denomination, Thengalai (Southern Cult) and Vadagalai (Northern Cult), regarding the Ceremonial Worship (Adhiapaka Mirasi) in Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple at Kancheepuram, a Division Bench of R. Suresh Kumar and S. Sounthar, JJ., reaffirmed that Thengalai alone recite the mantram and prabandham during pooja and Vadagalais participate only as worshippers and held that the earlier decrees are binding and final. [P.B. Rajahamsam v. S. Narayanan, W.A.No.1381 of 2022, Decided on 28-11-2025] Read more HERE
SECURITIES LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | SEBI’s approval for WeWork India IPO upheld; ₹1 Lakh Cost imposed for Suppression of Facts
In the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking intervention in relation to the IPO (Initial Public Offering) of WeWork India, a Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash,* JJ., upheld the SEBI approval for WeWork India IPO and imposed a cost of 1 lakh for deliberate act of suppression of concealment of material facts. [Vinay Bansal v. SEBI, W.P. (L) No. 31301 of 2025, Decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Transfer of assets does not equal transfer of business; Liability arises only if entire business is acquired as a unit
While deciding a petition filed by a Cooperative Credit Society challenging the rejection of its application to implead an auction purchaser in execution proceedings, a Single Judge of S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J., held that the auction purchaser cannot be burdened with debtor’s liabilities unless the entire business as a going concern is transferred. The Court noted that in the present case only assets of a dormant business were purchased under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), and therefore the purchaser was not liable to discharge the business dues of the debtor. The Court, therefore, concluded that the order of the Executing Court rejecting impleadment was correct, and dismissed the writ petition. [Sangli Zilla Parishad Employees v. Ninaidevi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4829, decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE
TRADE MARK
KERALA HIGH COURT | Interim injunction granted to “Bokashi Bucket”; use of identical Compost Bins Trade mark barred
In an appeal against the trial court’s order vacating the interim injunction and dismissal of application for alleged infringement of the registered trade mark “BOKASHI BUCKET,” a single-judge bench of S. Manu, J., set aside the trial court’s order and granted the interim injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing, selling, or promoting compost bins infringing the registered trade mark “BOKASHI BUCKET.” [Rajeev K.P. v. Unais K.K., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12426, Decided on 18-11-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Rejection of interim injunction upheld in ‘Mahalaxmi’ trademark dispute case; ₹10,000/- cost imposed
In an appeal filed by Kailash Masala Industries, challenging a trial court’s refusal to grant interim protection in its trademark and passing-off suit over the trademark “Mahalaxmi” for its Masala Products, a single-judge bench of Shailesh P. Brahme, J., dismissed the appeal with costs of ₹10,000/-, to be deposited in the Trial Court and disbursed to the respondents. [Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products, APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 44 OF 2023, Decided on 26-11-2025] Read more HERE
TRUST
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Charity Commr.’s order upheld in trust control dispute; attempt to usurp Trust for personal benefits flagged
In a case revolving around the question of whether resolutions passed by trustees of a public charitable trust for change of address and appointment of new trustees could be upheld despite objections, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., dismissed the writ petitions filed by the trustees. The Court stated that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had accepted the change reports without following due process of law, without proper enquiry, and without notice to all concerned, and consequently affirming the Joint Charity Commissioner’s orders setting aside the approvals. [Narendra Ramprakash Podar v. Pragnesh Narayan Podar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4826, decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE