This roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts from December 2025’s last week, such as legal aid to Indian citizens working abroad, ‘HOM’ trade mark dispute, HIV+ employee a ‘person of disability’ under RPwD Act, “CEFDON” is deceptively similar to “CEDON”, Stopping Stray Dog feeding at School Bus Stops a child-safety measure, illegal tiger poaching in Revti Forest, Codeine Cough Syrup Case, forgery case against international shooter Vartika Singh, Palghar mob lynching case, Teaching Bhagavad Gita/Yoga Not Per Se Religious, MNNIT Lecturer’s affair with ex-student, FIR quashed against Marathi TV Channel Executives, “RACIRAFT” and “EsiRaft” dispute, dispute between Karan Paul and K. P. H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd., Security deposit in lease agreement not “debt” under RDDBFI Act, Pahari Speaking People certificates for PoJK Displaced Persons of 1947, Magistrate’s order for revision at instance of proposed accused.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Indore Municipal Corporation directed to conduct stray dog removal drive in prominent public places, tourist spots
In a public interest litigation (“PIL”) filed seeking removal of livestock from city limits and stray dogs, the Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., directed the Indore Municipal Corporation (“IMC”) to identify prominent public places, including tourist places of Indore city, such as Chhappan Dukan and Sarafa, and conduct a drive for removal of stray dogs. [Doing Needful An Association of Young People Plantation Group of Indore City v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 15275 of 2019, decided on 19-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Petition for substitution of ODR-appointed arbitrator misconceived; Parties directed to mediation before Court’s Mediation Centre
In an arbitration petition seeking substitution of an arbitrator appointed through an Online Dispute Resolution (‘ODR’) platform, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., upheld the validity of the arbitration clause, which expressly provided for resolution through a designated ODR agency. The Court found that the appointment of the arbitrator was in line with the contractual terms and held that the challenge based on alleged lack of consensus was misconceived. At the same time, to minimise avoidable arbitration costs, the Court directed the parties to explore mediation before the Court’s Mediation Centre. [Amit Chaurasia v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5259, decided on 10-12-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Civil suit cannot vitiate arbitral awards on grounds of fraud; Single Judge’s order upheld
While hearing an appeal against an order dated 29-7-2025 (‘impugned order’), passed by a Single Judge Bench of the Court rejecting a challenge against an arbitral award, the Division Bench of Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, J and Anish Dayal, J.*, held that the alleged fraud pertained to internal relations between the parties and not fraud on the Court. Therefore, a separate civil suit could not be initiated to vitiate the arbitral award on grounds of fraud. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the instant appeal. [MMTC Ltd. v. Anglo American Metallurgical Pty. Ltd., RFA(OS)(COMM) No. 28 of 2025, decided on 24-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of interest claims; fresh arbitration impermissible after arbitral award
In a case revolving around whether computation of interest amounts, received after conclusion of arbitration, could be made the subject of a fresh reference under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that such an attempt was barred by constructive res judicata. The Court, while disposing of the petition, concluded that no arbitration agreement subsists in relation to the subject matter now sought to be agitated, and therefore declined to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal. [AAI v. Lite Bite Foods (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5230, decided on 09-12-2025] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu (Retd.) nominated as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between Karan Paul and K. P. H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd.
In a petition filed by Karan Paul (‘petitioner’), an Indian businessman, under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) seeking appointment of appointment of a Sole Arbitrator as per Articles of Association (‘AOA’) of the K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (‘the Company’) that owns the Indian Premier League (‘IPL’) franchise Punjab Kings, a Single Judge Bench of Jasgurpreet Singh Puri*, J., held that it was settled law that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the question as to whether the dispute was arbitrable or not was not to be looked into at the reference stage.
The Court nominated Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu, a former Judge of the High Court as the Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. [Karan Paul v. K. P. H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd., ARB no. 327 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 23-12-2025] Read more HERE
ARMED FORCES
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Court of Inquiry under BSF Rules not a disciplinary proceeding but merely a fact-finding exercise
In a matter revolving around whether departmental proceedings could be pursued simultaneously with a pending criminal trial based on the same allegations, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar* and Sanjay Parihar, JJ., held that there was no statutory bar to allow both proceedings to continue side by side, and that what has been ordered was only a Court of Inquiry under Rule 173 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (‘BSF Rules’), which was a fact-finding exercise and not a disciplinary proceeding. [Akhand Prakash Shahi v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1254, decided on 11-12-2025] Read more HERE
BANKING & FINANCIAL LAW
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Security deposit in lease agreement not “debt” under RDDBFI Act
While hearing a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘DRAT’), the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ. and Sanjiv Berry*, J. held that the security deposit in a landlord-tenant relationship could not be termed as banking transaction within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (‘RDDBFI Act’) defining the word “debt”. [Sajiv Kumar Jain v. HDFC Bank Ltd., CWP No. 38893 of 2025), decided on 24-12-2025] Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Courts can direct police assistance to implement injunction order under S. 151 CPC
In a case deciding whether police assistance could be directed for implementation of an interim injunction order permitting construction of a house, a Single Judge Bench of Sashikanta Mishra, J., held that the Trial Court’s refusal was unsustainable. The Court clarified that Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) confers wide inherent powers to protect rights when available provisions are inadequate and directed the trial court to instruct the police authority to render all assistance to ensure the injunction order is implemented. [Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4530, decided on 12-12-2025] Read more HERE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Fresh remedy under Article 226 barred once statutory remedy availed; Writ rejected after Assessee filed rectification application under IT Act
In a writ petition filed seeking quashing of notice passed against the petitioner under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“IT Act”), as well as the subsequent order passed against him and also seeking release of his bank accounts, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Majive Shukla, JJ., dismissed the application, holding that since the petitioner chose to proceed under the remedy provided in the statute, he could not be allowed to seek a fresh remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that one cannot claim a fresh remedy under Article 226 after availing a statutory remedy. [Anand Kumar Verma v. Prin. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8091, decided on 27-11-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | State has Constitutional Duty to provide legal aid to Indian citizens working abroad
In a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to intervene and assist an Indian citizen in securing compensation arising out of overseas employment when the citizen is unable to pursue remedies abroad, a Single-Judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that Government of India has a constitutional duty to provide assistance, including legal aid, to Indian citizens not only within the territory of India but also outside it. [Malarvizhi v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 13149, Decided on 16-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked to order stamp duty refund on unexecuted agreement despite Section 48 limitation under Maharashtra Stamp Act
In a case revolving around the issue whether the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be invoked to seek a direction of refund of stamp duty paid on an instrument that was never executed, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that although the Stamp Authorities were correct in rejecting the application for refund on the ground of limitation under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (‘Stamp Act’), the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court could nonetheless be exercised to grant relief. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed that the refund of stamp duty be made within six weeks. [Suresh Ramchandra Sancheti v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5198, decided on 12-12-2025] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Public funds can’t be given to ‘favoured few’; audit of ‘scandalously high’ fees paid to Govt law officers suggested
In a case revolving around the issue whether fee bills of a counsel who had represented Madurai City Municipal Corporation (‘Corporation’) for over fourteen years could be settled despite non-submission of certified copies of judgments, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan*, J., held that while the Corporation was justified in insisting on certified copies, fairness required that assistance be given to the petitioner to obtain them. Thus, the Court directed the Legal Services Authority to arrange certified copies and mandated that the Corporation settle the bills within two months thereafter, though without interest. [P. Thirumalai v. Madurai City Municipal Corpn., W.P(MD) No. 26707 of 2022, decided on 12-11-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Stopping Stray Dog feeding at Society access points & School Bus Stops a child-safety measure, not wrongful restraint
In an application filed for quashing and setting aside of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(1), 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, a Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil,* JJ., quashed the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings and held that stopping someone from feeding stray dogs near footpaths, society entry—exit points and school bus stops is a child-safety measure and restriction thereon is not “voluntary obstruction” under Section 126 of the BNS. [Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 343 of 2025, Decided on 18-12-2025] Read more HERE
JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Notice issued on PIL seeking ST Status, Pahari Speaking People certificates for PoJK Displaced Persons of 1947
In a matter arising from a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) seeking Scheduled Tribe status and Pahari Speaking People (‘PSP’) certificates for the Displaced Persons of 1947 (‘DPs of 1947’) who migrated from Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (‘PoJK’), the Division Bench of Arun Palli, C.J., and Rajnesh Oswal, J., issued notice to the respondents so that a detailed response could be filed by the respondents and adjourned the matter to 10-02-2026. [Jammu Kashmir Sharnarthi Action Committee v. State (UT of J&K), WP(C)PIL No. 12/2025, decided on 22-12-2025] Read more HERE
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Registrar under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act lacks jurisdiction to decide inheritance/validity of membership transfer
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai affirming the Assistant Registrar’s order dated 15-09-2018, whereby the petitioner’s name was directed to be deleted from the membership register of Respondent 2 Society and replaced by the name of Respondent 1, a single-judge bench of Amit Borkar, J., quashed the impugned orders and held that Registrar had no jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act) to adjudicate disputes involving succession, validity of long-past transfers, or allegations of forgery, as such issues fall outside the limited and summary powers conferred by the statute. [Namdeo Suratsingh Chaudhary v. Natu Ambersingh Patil, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5222, Decided on 16-12-2025] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | “Not just or humane”; woman not sent back to prison despite sentence reduction over erroneous assumption of time spent in custody
In a petition filed by a tribal woman, rectification of an anomaly arising from an appellate judgment was sought that was passed on the erroneous assumption that she had remained in continuous custody for several years, the Division Bench of Farjand Ali* and Anand Sharma, JJ., held that through the prism of equity and conscience, it does not even seem just or humane to send her back to prison for the unserved portion of the term. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and stated that the petitioner should not be required to surrender before the authorities concerned. [Kali v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 6711, decided on 1-12-2025] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Directions issued against misuse of victim compensation scheme in sexual offences
While hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of persons accused under Section 328 and 376 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) by the Trial Court, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarna Kanta Sharma, J, declined to interfere with the order and laid down important directions to safeguard against the misuse of the victim compensation scheme in sexual offence cases by victims who file false allegations and subsequently resile from the same. [The State of GNCT of Delhi v. Toshib alias Paritosh, CRL. REV. P. No. 772 of 2024, decided on 15-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Interim bail granted to Vibhor Rana accused in Codeine Cough Syrup Case
In a bail application filed by Vibhor Rana, an accused in Phensedyl Cough Syrup Racket/ Codeine Cough Syrup Case, a Single Judge Bench of Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., allowed the application. The Court stated that Vibhor Rana was not named in the FIR, and his name has surfaced only in the confessional statements of co-accused. Further, there was no recovery from Vibhor Rana, and the undertaking was also given that he shall not leave Lucknow during the period of bail. Thus, the Court found that the present case was fit for grant of interim bail, accordingly, granted to Vibhor Rana in Codeine Cough Syrup Racket case. [Vibhor Rana v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12900 of 2025, decided on 18-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Documents not sent for FSL examination’; forgery case against international shooter Vartika Singh quashed
In an application filed by Vartika Singh, an international shooter, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against her for allegedly forging documents for her appointment as a Member of the National Commission for Women (“NCW”), the Single Judge Bench of Rajeev Singh, J., allowed the application, holding that there was no evidence against her for forgery and cheating. [Vartika Singh v. State of U.P., Application u/S 482 No. 2209 of 2022, decided on 19-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bail denied in Palghar mob lynching case citing gravity of offence and distinct role of accused
In a bail application arising out of the Palghar mob lynching incident, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., held that the applicant was not entitled to bail either on the ground of parity with co-accused already released or on account of long incarceration. The Court observed that the applicant’s distinct and graver role, established through CCTV footage and corroborated by witnesses, made the case unsuitable for bail, and accordingly dismissed the application while reserving liberty to renew the prayer after completion of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’). [Rajesh Dhakal Rao v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 3043 of 2025, decided on 23-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Not a case of Sexual Harassment”; MNNIT Lecturer’s “shockingly disproportionate” dismissal for Consensual Relationship with ex-student remitted
In a petition filed by the petitioner, a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering in Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (‘MNNIT’) aggrieved by the order of removal from service based on a report of One Man Inquiry Commission (‘Commission’) which called his affair with an ex-student an immoral conduct, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that it was not a case of sexual harassment, rather a case of a consensual relationship which continued even after the complainant left the Institution for almost three years. Thus, the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly, the Court remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order with respect to the quantum of the punishment. [Rajesh v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8076, decided on 16-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Live-in relationships not illegal; couples can’t be deprived of their fundamental right to life & liberty under Art. 21’; Protection granted to 13 live-in couples
In a batch of 13 writ petitions filed by live-in couples seeking protection from their family and others, the Single Judge Bench of Vivek Kumar Singh, J., allowed the petitions, holding that the petitioners were at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. The Court reiterated that live-in relationships are not illegal, constitute marriage under the law, and couples cannot be deprived of their right to life and liberty. [Akanksha v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8090, decided on 17-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | FIR against all but one accused in Rs 50 crore investment scam quashed
In a case where the accused persons filed applications for quashment of FIR registered against them over Rs 50 crore investment fraud, on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against them, the Division Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke* and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ., held that for certain accused, compelling them to face trial would amount to an abuse of process of law, and hence the FIR against them was quashed. However, as far as one accused was concerned, the Court found prima facie material showing receipt of financial benefits from investors and therefore rejected his plea for quashing. [Walmik v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (Apl) No. 100 of 2024, decided on 17-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mere Reference to Caste Name Not an Offence Unless Used to Intentionally Insult or Humiliate: FIR quashed against Marathi TV Channel Executives
In the writ petitions filed by the Programming Head of the Marathi television channel “Star Pravah” and Star Entertainment Media Private Limited (SEMPL) and its Executive Producer, seeking quashment of FIR registered against them for alleged offences under Section 295-A of the IPC (Penal Code, 1860), Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act), a Division Bench of Manish Pitale* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., quashed the FIR against the TV Channel Executives and held that “mere use or reference to the name of a caste… cannot in itself constitute an offence, unless it is referred to or used intentionally to inflict insult, intimidation or humiliation.” [Shrabani Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition Nos. 4546 & 4547 of 2013, Decided on 23-12-2025] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Magistrate’s order directing police to register FIR and investigate not open to revision at instance of proposed accused
In a revision filed for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘Add. CJM’) whereby police were directed to register an FIR and investigate the same, a Single Judge Bench of Chawan Prakash*, J., held that Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, directing the police to register FIR and investigate, is not open to revision at the instance of proposed accused against whom neither cognizance has been taken, nor any process got issued. [Nahni v. State of UP, Criminal Revision No. 6131 of 2023, decided on 9-12-2025] Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Complete area for afforestation not stated’: State directed to file better affidavit giving details of compensatory plantation
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the reported illegal felling of 488 trees case in Bhopal, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., directed the State to file a better affidavit indicating the exact nature, age, and girth of trees proposed to be planted as compensation. [In reference (Suo Moto) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 9588, decided on 17-12-2025] Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Severe injuries and missing nails, teeth: suo motu cognizance of illegal tiger poaching in Revti Forest taken, response sought from Principal Chief Conservator
In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the discovery of the carcass of a tiger who had been allegedly poached, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., took cognizance of similar incidents of animal poaching, especially poaching of a tiger in Revti Forest, and directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Wild Life Warden, Chhattisgarh (“Principal Chief Conservator”), to file an affidavit disclosing the concrete and effective steps taken and proposed to be taken by the State Government and its instrumentalities to prevent further incidents of poaching by electrocution and to curb the illegal practice of erecting electric fencing or laying live electric wires. [In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPPIL No. 92 of 2024, decided on 19-12-2025] Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Maintenance has to be proportionate to children’s needs & not husband’s income’; wife’s claim of Rs 1 lakh per child dismissed
In a case deciding whether the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was adequate, and whether it should be payable from the date of the application or only from the date of the order, a Single Judge Bench of Manjusha Deshpande, J., held that the maintenance awarded was insufficient and clarified that the word ‘each’ in the operative order must be interpreted to mean that the wife and both daughters are individually entitled to Rs 50,000 per month. The Court also held that maintenance must be awarded from the date of the application, not from the date of the order. The Court further stated that the amount of maintenance should be in proportion to children’s needs and not dependent upon a proportional division of the husband’s income. [X v. Y, Writ Petition No. 3828 of 2024, decided on 12-12-2025] Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | HIV+ employee a ‘person of disability’ under RPwD Act; Relief granted to BSF constable
While hearing a petition filed by an HIV+ constable in the Border Security Force (‘BSF’) seeking quashing of order of termination of employment and reinstatement in service, the Division Bench of *C. Hari Shankar, J and Om Prakash Shukla, J, held that the petitioner could not have been treated as unfit to discharge his duties on the sole ground that he was HIV+. The Court also held an HIV+ person would be considered as a ‘person of disability’ under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’). [ABC v. Border Security Force, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9289, decided on 16-12-2025] Read more HERE
INDUSTRIAL LAW
JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Charitable trust engaged in systemic and commercial activities is an ‘industry’ under ID Act
The matter concerned whether a charitable trust, engaged in multifarious activities including commercial ventures, could be classified as an ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), arising from the termination of a worker which the Industrial Tribunal had quashed as illegal while awarding 50 percent back wages. A Single Judge Bench of M.A. Chowdhary, J., while dismissing the petition challenging the Tribunal’s award, upheld that the Trust’s activities were systemic, organised, and commercial in nature thereby falling within the definition of ‘industry’. [Dharmarth Trust J&K v. Industrial Tribunal, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1266, decided on 19-12-2025] Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over ‘HOM’ trade mark dispute dismissed
The plaintiff had filed the present application seeking to restrain the defendants from using the impugned trade mark “HOM” or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade marks “HOM”, “HOM House Of Mandarin” and registered trade mark “HOM House of Mandarin” and from passing off their services as that of plaintiff. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the plaintiff operating the restaurant “House Of Mandarin” failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The Court noted that there was insufficient material to demonstrate that the abbreviation “HOM” had acquired goodwill or reputation in the public mind. Accordingly, the interim application was dismissed. [Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects (P) Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5298, decided on 19-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | “CEFDON” is deceptively similar to “CEDON”; permanent injunction issued, ₹5 Lakh Costs imposed
In a suit seeking reliefs for infringement of trade mark coupled with passing off for mark ‘CEDON,’ a Single-Judge bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., permanently restrained the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEDON” and from using the mark “CEFDON” or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Court further directed each defendant to pay ₹5 lakhs as costs to the plaintiff within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum. [Blue Cross Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. RB Remedies (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5264, Decided on 16-12-2025] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | No deceptive similarity found between “RACIRAFT” and “EsiRaft”; Vacates interim injunction
While hearing an interim application filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’), wherein the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from using the impugned trade mark “EsiRaft” or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered trade mark “RACIRAFT” and from passing off their medicinal product as that of the plaintiff, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the marks “RACIRAFT” and “EsiRaft” are prima facie visually and phonetically dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion among consumers. Accordingly, the Court vacated the ad-interim relief earlier granted, dismissed the interim application, and extended the relief for one week to enable transition. [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd., Interim Application (L) No. 9484 of 2025, decided on 23-12-2025] Read more HERE
MONETARY LAWS
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Teaching Bhagavad Gita; Yoga Not Per Se Religious; FCRA Registration can’t be denied on compounded violation
In a petition challenging respondent 2’s (Director, FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs) order rejecting FCRA registration on the ground of receipt of foreign contribution without prior permission, even after the offence was compounded under Section 41 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), a single-judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., set aside the impugned order and remitted back the matter to Respondent 2 for fresh consideration. [Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. Union of India, WP (MD) No. 29610 of 2025, Decided on 19-12-2025] Read more HERE
PENSION
MADRAS HIGH COURT | State Freedom Fighter pension doesn’t automatically guarantee Central Freedom Fighters’ Samman Pension; Document-based proof mandatory
In a case deciding whether grant of State Government Freedom Fighters Pension would automatically extend to Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘SSS Scheme’), the Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and C. Kumarappan, JJ., held that the eligibility conditions stipulated under the SSS Scheme must be scrupulously followed. The Court clarified that mere receipt of State pension does not ipso facto entitle a person to Samman Pension under the Central SSS Scheme and accordingly set aside the writ order dated 28-10-2020 while allowing the writ appeal. [Union of India v. S. Somasundaram, WA No. 806 of 2022, decided on 15-12-2025] Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Special Auxiliary Police personnel are contractual appointees with a maximum tenure of 7 years, not entitled to superannuation benefit
While hearing writ petitions concerning the entitlement of personnel engaged under the Special Auxiliary Police (‘SAP’) scheme, a Single Judge Bench of Ananda Sen, J., held that such personnel were contractual appointees with a maximum tenure of seven years and not regular government servants. The Court observed that the scheme itself did not prescribe any age of retirement, and therefore these personnel could not claim superannuation benefits equivalent to regular government employees. Consequently, the petitions seeking parity in service benefits were dismissed. [Francis Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3830, decided on 17-12-2025] Read more HERE