This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Nescafe Premix’s taxability, Canned Pineapple Slices not ‘Fresh Fruits’, Media Academy not entitled to Pension, ‘HIMALAYA’ trademark infringement, copyright registration of ‘NIOP NIWAI’ oil, Remarrying during pendency of wife’s appeal, loudspeaker usage for religious practice, Rahul Gandhi’s win in Lok Sabha elections, sale of unlabeled KumKum in Erumeli, Chandra Kocchar’s Prosecution, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena worker assaulted Advocate, JioStar’s appeal against CCI probe, ‘Akhanda 2’ release permitted, 96 Lakh Compensation for Failed Edge Servers Delivery.
ARBITATION
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Foreign Arbitral Awards upholding agreement based on surmises is against public policy & unenforceable
In the execution petitions filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration and Conciliation Act) read with Order XXI Rule 46 CPC, seeking recognition and enforcement of two Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations (FOSFA) foreign arbitral awards, a single-judge bench of N. Anand Venkatesh J., dismissed the execution petitions and held that Arbitral Tribunal’s assumption of jurisdiction without a valid arbitration agreement violates Public Policy of India, making the award unenforceable under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Olam International Ltd. v. Manickavel Edible Oils (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11018, Decided on 25-11-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral Award against TCS upheld; Rs. 96 Lakh Compensation ordered to Inspira for Failed Edge Servers Delivery
In two cross petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the arbitral award directing Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) to compensate Inspira IT Products Private Ltd. (Inspira) for loss on failed supply of 207 Edge Servers, a single-judge bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., upheld the arbitral award and rejected TCS’s challenge and Inspira’s limited claim for support charges. [Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Inspira IT Products (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4832, Decided on 02-12-2025] Read more HERE
ARMED FORCES
DELHI HIGH COURT | Constitutional validity of 2013 guidelines disqualifying colour-blind personnel in Central Armed Forces upheld
While hearing three writ petitions filed by petitioners who had been terminated from the post of constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) on grounds of being colour-blind, the Division Bench of *Subramonium Prasad, J and Vimal Kumar Yadav, J, held that the termination order was valid. The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the New Policy Guidelines on recruitment/retention in respect of Central Armed Forces (‘CAPFs’) and Assam Rifles (‘AR’) personnel having defective vision including colour blindness dated 27-2-2013 (‘2013 guidelines’) stating that the objective of the guidelines is to prevent the risk of injury at the hands of personnel who have defective vision or cannot distinguish between colours of the uniform. [Anjar Ali Khan v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 9556 of 2018, decided on 28-11-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Film ‘Akhanda 2’ release permitted after parties agreed to settle Film distribution dispute
In an application seeking interim injunctions under Section 9(1)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), restraining the respondents from creating third-party rights or releasing the film ‘Akhanda 2’ until an arbitral award was paid, a single-judge bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J., vacated the interim order of injunction and permitted the release the movie ‘Akhanda 2,’ as the parties agreed to settle Film distribution dispute and part payment is already done. [Eros International Media Ltd. v. 14 Reels Entertainment (P) Ltd., OA Nos. 997 & 998 of 2025 and Arb. Appln. Nos. 1374 & 1388 of 2025, Decided on 10-12-2025] Read more HERE
COMPETITION LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘CCI has power to address menace of anti-competitive practices’; JioStar’s appeal against CCI probe dismissed
In an intra-court appeal was filed by Jiostar (Star India) under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, challenging the Competition Commission of India’s order directing investigation into Jiostar, a Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ., refused to interfere with CCI’s order and held that the Competition Act operates unhindered by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) in matters of anti-competitive conduct. [Jiostar India (P) Ltd. v. CCI, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13387, Decided on 03-12-2025] Read more HERE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Plea seeking to prevent dishonor of deities and religious books disposed; relief lies with legislature/executive
In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the State Government Authorities to take effective steps to prevent the denigration, dishonor, disfigurement, and desecration of Devta, the Division Bench of Indrajeet Shukla and Rajan Roy, JJ., held that implementation of the existing laws is in the domain of the executive and making of new laws or amending the existing laws so as to make them effective lies within the domain of the legislature. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the said petition with the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Ministry/Department concerned, who may have a role to play regarding the grievances raised in the present petition and needful shall be done to redress the same. [Hindu Front for Justice v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8060, decided on 4-12-2025] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Prior relationship or lending money not a license for Objectionable Posts; Conduct may amount to ‘outraging modesty’ & ‘stalking’
While deciding an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande*, JJ., held that posting objectionable material on a social site such as Facebook would amount to committing offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Court observed that even if there had been a prior relationship or financial assistance extended on the assurance of marriage, such circumstances cannot be construed as giving a license to post objectionable content online. Emphasising that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), are to be sparingly used and not as a tool to stifle legitimate prosecution, the Court rejected the application seeking quashing of the FIR. [Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4846, decided on 02-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Bar on grant of anticipatory bail under S. 18 SC/ST Act not applicable when application filed under S. 482 of BNSS
In an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 376, 506, 406, 323, 504 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Pankaj Bhatia, J., held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes a bar on grant of anticipatory bail, however, this objection does not apply on the present case as the application for anticipatory bail was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS and not under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’). Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. [Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of UP, Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr. P.C. No. 1333 of 2025, decided on 2-12-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | “Conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory restrictions”; bail granted in NDPS case
While hearing a bail application of the accused apprehended for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J, granted bail to the accused noting that he had already spent significant time in custody and a speedy trial did not seem to be a possibility. The Court also cited discrepancy in identification of contraband and non-joinder of independent witness as grounds for grant of bail. [Sahil Sharma alias Maxx v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8735, decided on 3-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | FIR against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena worker accused of assaulting Advocate over Amazon-Marathi Language Row not quashed
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of FIR against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena worker for alleged assault on an advocate for obtaining ex-parte stay against them from interfering in Amazon’s operations by demanding the use Marathi language in its day-to-day activities, a Division bench of A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale,* JJ., refused to quash the FIR. [Akhil Anil Chitre v. State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 05 OF 2021, Decided on 09-12-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail denied to husband in dowry death case over wife’s post-mortem injury and statutory presumption
The present application is filed by the husband for grant of a regular bail in a dowry harassment case filed under Sections 80, 85, and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where his wife (‘the deceased’) committed suicide by hanging herself within five months of their marriage. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., after considering WhatsApp messages between the deceased and the husband; and a lump in left parietal region of the deceased, stated that there is a statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’), as the deceased has died within five months of her marriage and there are specific allegations that she was subjected to harassment by the petitioner on account of demand of a car. The Court, after considering the seriousness and gravity of allegations, and the statutory presumption, found no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. [Chetan Dubey v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2863 of 2025, decided on 3-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Chandra Kocchar’s Prosecution in Octroi evasion case quashed & ordered to proceed against ICICI Bank only
In a petition challenging the complaint dated 31-10-2009 filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation and subsequent issuance of summons against the officials of the ICICI Bank Ltd., including the then CEO Chanda Kocchar in relation to evasion of Octroi by the bank, a single-judge bench of Neela Gokhale, J., quashed and set aside the complaint and the summons against Petitioner 2 to 5. However, ordered to continue the proceedings against petitioner 1, ICICI Bank Ltd. [ICICI Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 487 of 2010, Decided on 08-12-2025] Read more HERE
DRUGS, COSMETICS AND PHARMACY
KERALA HIGH COURT | Immediate action against widespread sale of unlabelled KumKum in Erumeli ordered; directives issued
In a suo motu proceeding regarding widespread sale and storage of unlabelled and unregulated KumKum being sold to pilgrims at Erumeli and surrounding areas, a Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V.* and K.V. Jayakumar, JJ., noted serious violations of statutory norms governing the manufacture, labelling, sale, and distribution of cosmetics and issued mandatory directions. [Suo Motu v. Union Government, SSCR No. 29 of 2025, Decided on 08-12-2025] Read more HERE
EDUCATIONAL LAW
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | Educational institutes cannot withhold student’s original certificate over non-payment of fee
While hearing a writ petition seeking declaration of the actions of the Respondents in withholding the original certificates of the petitioner’s daughter as violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 21A of the Constitution, the Single Judge Bench of Surepalli Nanda, J, held that the Board of Intermediate and Higher Education had no lien on the certificates of the students and as such could not withhold them. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to issue the original certificates of the petitioner’s daughter, including the consolidated memo of marks. [P.V. Amarender Reddy v. The Principal Secretary, High Education, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 1660, decided on 4-12-2025] Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Plea challenging Rahul Gandhi’s win in Lok Sabha elections dismissed
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged qualification of Rahul Gandhi to be chosen as Member of Parliament (‘MP’) citing his conviction under Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Manjive Shukla and Shekhar B. Saraf, JJ., a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years is the bar provided under Section 8(3) of the Representation Act, however, when such a conviction has been stayed by a higher court, the indelible mark of a convict cannot be assigned to such a person till the appeal is decided. Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition at hand. [Ashok Pandey v. Rahul Gandhi, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8032, decided on 4-12-2025] Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Use of loudspeaker for religious practice ≠Fundamental Right’; suo moto cognizance taken of recurring noise pollution in Nagpur
In a writ petition by Masjid A. Gousiya, through its Secretary, seeking a direction to restore the use of loudspeakers in the mosque, a Division Bench of Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., dismissed the writ petition and held that held that no religious institution has a fundamental right to use loudspeakers. The Court initiated a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on recurring noise pollution in City of Nagpur. [Masjid A. Gousiya v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4914, Decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Eviction under Senior Citizens Act invalid when no maintenance sought
In a writ petition challenging Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal’s eviction order dated 26-08-2025 and the appellate order dated 01-10-2025 affirming the eviction, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act), a Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash,* JJ., quashed eviction ordered under the Act and held that eviction cannot be granted when no claim for maintenance is made and that the Act cannot be used as a tool for summary eviction in property disputes. “The Act is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard the vulnerable (senior citizen), but it cannot be (mis) used by the senior citizen as a tool for summary eviction without the fulfilment of statutory requirements.” [Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector, Writ Petition (L) No. 31614 of 2025, Decided on 08-12-2025] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Remarrying during pendency of first wife’s appeal amounts to Contempt; man sentenced to 3 months jail and fine
In a contempt petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Contempt of Courts Act‘) against respondent-husband for willful and intentional disobedience of order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, a Single Judge Bench of Alka Sarin, J., held that the conduct of the husband in contracting a second marriage during pending appeal by the wife in divorce case amounted to civil contempt. It is important to note that the appeal was filed by the wife within the prescribed period of limitation and a stay had also been granted therein. The Court sentenced the husband to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and stated that sanctity of rule of law and the brazen breach and non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court cannot be taken lightly. [Bhawna Rani v. Gurdeep Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 15388, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Cancellation of copyright registration of edible oil brand ‘NIOP NIWAI’ ordered
In a petition filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) seeking removal of the copyright registration of NIOP NIWAI, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the artistic work of Respondent 1 was substantially similar to that of the petitioner and was liable to be expunged from the Register of Copyright for want of originality. [Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8617, decided on 24-11-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Failure to record findings on provisional specification vitiates Patent rejection order
While considering an application filed in 2014 seeking patent protection for a herbicidal emulsifiable concentrate (‘EC’) combining pendimethalin and metribuzin, a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’) formulation and even asserted that SE was superior to EC and emphasised that later claims referring to EC formulations were not fairly based on the provisional specification. Noting further that several prior art documents and affidavits were ignored, the Court set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different officer through a speaking order within four months. [Rallis India Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11657, decided on 20-11-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Injunction restraining infringement of ‘HIMALAYA’ mark granted
While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the petitioner, Himalaya Wellness sought a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, dilution, tarnishment, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages etc., the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the defendants use of the mark ‘HIMALAYA’ amounted to trade mark infringement as the impugned mark was visually, phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks. Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or distributing such items containing the impugned marks. [Himalaya Wellness Co. v. Greenland Trading Co., C.S.(COMM) No. 1266 of 2025, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Preliminary enquiry cannot be sole basis for finding guilt or determining punishment; Constable’s dismissal quashed
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a chain of administrative orders that resulted in his dismissal from service as a Constable in the Police Department, a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., held that the Preliminary Enquiry could not be made the sole basis for a finding of guilt or for determining the quantum of punishment. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of dismissal. Further, the Court remanded the matter to the Inspector General of Police to conduct a fresh review within three months and directed the petitioner’s immediate reinstatement. [Shankar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 6341, decided on 4-12-2025] Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Media Academy & Temperance Board employees not entitled to Pension under Karnataka Civil Services Rules
In bunch of appeals and review petition challenging single-judge bench order dated 10-01-2022, granting pensionary benefits to employees of the Media Academy and Temperance Board under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (‘KCSRs’), and directions in contempt proceedings for implementing those orders, a Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman* and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ., set aside the order and held that the employees of the Media Academy or the Temperance Board are not Government servants and hence, not eligible to pension under KCSRs. [State of Karnataka v. Yallagaiah G., 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 21766, Decided on 19-11-2025] Read more HERE
TAXATION LAW
BOMABY HIGH COURT | Canned Pineapple Slices, tidbits and fruit cocktail not ‘Fresh Fruits’, not exempted from Tax
In a reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to determine whether pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup and canned in vacuum sealed containers constituted “fresh fruits” falling under Entry A-23 of the Schedule and therefore exempted from tax, a Division Bench of M.S. Sonak* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., set aside Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal’s (Tribunal) order and held that canned pineapple slices, tidbits and fruit cocktail are not “fresh fruits” under Entry A-23. [Commr. of Sales Tax v. Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, Nagpur, Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 2010, Decided on 04-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Nescafe Premix is ‘Instant Coffee’, taxable at 8%, not 16%
In a reference made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (Tribunal), under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to determine whether “Coffee and Instant Drinks Nescafe Premix” is classifiable under Entry C-II-3 (tax 8%) or Entry C-II-18(2) (tax 16%) of Schedule C, a Division Bench of M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., upheld the Tribunal’s view that Nescafe Premix is covered by Entry C-II-3 and therefore taxable at 8%, not 16%. [Commr. of Sales Tax v. Nestle India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4950, Decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE