This week’s roundup traverses all the High Courts to cover important cases in the last week of December, such as bail to director in casting couch case, YouTuber wife’s maintenance claim, child internet safety, Lucknow Ajeet Singh Murder Case, CM Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights, and more.
ARBITRATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Buyer cannot reject goods after use; ₹4.25 crore Arbitral award against Godrej & Boyce, upheld
In an arbitration revolving around whether Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (‘buyer’) could reject stainless steel seamless tubes for being defective, after having accepted delivery and put them to use in heat exchangers, the Arbitral Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) had awarded Rs 4.25 crore in favour of Remi Sales & Engg. Ltd. (‘seller’). A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., upheld the arbitral award, emphasising that once the goods were found to be in accordance with the contractual specifications, the burden shifted to the buyer to prove defects and the buyer cannot reject goods after use. The Court concluded that no perversity or patent illegality was demonstrated in the award, and therefore interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) was unwarranted. [Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Remi Sales & Engineering Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5334, decided on 24-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BAIL
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Deposit of passport’ cannot be imposed routinely as bail condition: Bail condition in idol demolition case, quashed
In a petition filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby anticipatory bail was granted to him along with a direction to deposit passports before the Trial Magistrate, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that the discretionary power upon Criminal Courts of ordering for ‘deposit of passport’ as a bail condition ought not to be exercised in a rote or routine manner. Accordingly, the Court modified the said anticipatory bail order by quashing the bail conditions of depositing passports. [Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab, CRR No. 134 of 2020, decided on 22-12-2025]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Conditional bail granted to Film Director in casting couch allegations as investigation already crossed crucial stage
In a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), concerning charges under Sections 74, 75(1), and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), in a case dealing with an Assistant Film Director accused of casting couch, a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., while acknowledging the gravity of the allegations and the affront to the dignity of women, held that further judicial incarceration would serve no useful purpose since the investigation had crossed its major stages, and consequently, granted bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and protection of the complainant. [Dhinil Babu v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 14756 of 2025, decided on 30-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
DELHI HIGH COURT | Remand after reversal of Rejection of Plaint creates entitlement to refund of Court fees
In an application seeking refund of the full court fees paid on the appeal, in light of the remand ordered by the High Court after setting aside the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., held that the appellant was entitled to refund of the court fees deposited on the appeal. [Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9618, Decided on 15-10-2025]
Read more HERE
CONSUMER RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Consumer cannot be penalised for insurer’s operational negligence with premium cheque
In a writ petition challenging the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that the consumer complaint was not barred by limitation and that repudiation of the insurance policy by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (‘New India’) on the ground of dishonour of premium cheque was unjustified. Emphasising that New India’s deficiency of service and operational negligence led to the dispute, the Court clarified that reliance on Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (‘Insurance Act’) was of no assistance. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gayatridham Phase Coop. Housing Society, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5060, decided on 15-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CORRUPTION
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Sanction under S. 197 CrPC not a shield for corruption; Cognizance against ex-IAS officer upheld
In a writ petition challenging the cognizance order passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ambuj Nath held that the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) does not invalidate the order. Emphasising that siphoning State funds and amassing ill-gotten wealth can never be considered part of a public servant’s official duty, the Court clarified that the Section 197 CrPC corruption shield cannot be invoked to protect acts of corruption. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. [Pooja Singhal v. Enforcement Directorate, W.P. (Cr.) No. 1043 of 2024, decided on 22-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Wife outshines uncle in closest legal heir test”: Relief denied to uncle for transferring investigation to CBI in Lucknow Ajeet Singh Murder Case
In a set of two criminal writ petitions filed by uncle of deceased Ajeet Singh in the Lucknow Ajeet Singh Murder Case seeking transfer of investigation to CBI, the Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ., disposed of the petitions, holding that the uncle had no locus to seek such relief and allowing the petitions would tantamount to allowing a stranger to interfere in ongoing criminal proceedings. The Court also held that the wife outshines the uncle in the closest legal heir test. [Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4791 of 2025, decided on 18-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CRUELTY
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Divorce due to cruelty by wife who concealed her infertility, upheld
In an appeal filed by the wife against the judgment whereby the Family Court granted divorce decree in favour of the husband under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment, holding that the Family Court had rightly ruled in favour of the husband. [H v. B, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 12054, decided on 09-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CHILD RIGHTS
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Union urged to step up awareness on child internet safety; Suggested exploring Australia-style law restricting online access for under-16s
In a Public Interest Litigation concerning the easy availability of pornographic content to children, the Division Bench of Dr. G. Jayachandran* and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ., held that the authorities concerned shall accelerate their awareness campaign more effectively and take the message to the vulnerable group through all available medias. The Court further observed that the Union of India may explore the possibility of passing legislation similar to that enacted by Australia prohibiting internet usage by children below the age of 16. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without costs. [S. Vijayakumar v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 13987, decided on 09-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DEBT, MONETARY AND FINANACIAL LAWS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Appointment of SEBI Adjudicating Officer is administrative, does not require a prior, reasoned recorded opinion
While hearing two cross letters patent appeals assailing the judgement dated 9-7-2018 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Single Judge of the Court had set aside adjudication proceedings under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (‘SEBI Adjudication Rules’), the Division Bench of *Anil Kshetarpal, J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J, held that the appointment of an Adjudicating Officer (‘AO’) is an administrative step that does not require a prior, reasoned recorded opinion. [SEBI v. Amit Jain, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9283, decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Ownership of secured asset in a statutory sale under SARFAESI is transferred upon issuance of sale certificate
In a case revolving around the issue whether, after the amendment to Section 13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), the ownership rights of borrowers in a secured asset stood extinguished upon issuance of the sale notice under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules, or only upon issuance of the sale certificate; the Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash*, JJ., held that ownership of the secured asset is transferred only upon issuance of the sale certificate, and not merely on publication of the sale notice; and once an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), comes into effect before the sale certificate is issued, the auction purchaser cannot claim ownership rights as the interim moratorium halts the SARFAESI sale. [Arrow Business Development Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4985, decided on 10-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Defamation battle between Brother and Sister: Siblings urged to “learn to give up than to give into litigation”
In an appeal challenging the Trial Court’s order refusing to condone the delay and not admitting appellant-defendant’s written statement in a defamation suit between siblings, a Single-Judge bench of Jitendra Jain, J., set aside the impugned order and permitted her to file written statement in a lis between siblings wherein a dispute over their parents’ properties, ultimately escalated into a defamation battle between brother and sister. [Rangamma Soundappa Chetty v. Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5462, Decided on 19-12-2025]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 | Re-evaluation of answer-sheets cannot be ordered merely on student’s expectation of higher marks
In a petition filed by the petitioner, a student of Intermediate examinations, seeking to quash the order passed by the Respondent-Regional Secretary of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office by which he rejected the re-evaluation of marks in subjects challenged by her, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Saran, J., held that no order for re-evaluation of answer-sheets only on the strength of presumption that the petitioner was accorded lesser marks than she had expected could be granted. [Faaiz Qamar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8134, decided on 15-12-2025]
Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Indore Water Contamination Crisis| Municipal Corp. directed to provide clean drinking water, State to provide best medical treatment to affected persons
In a writ petition filed regarding the Indore Water Contamination Crisis, the Division Bench of Rajesh Kumar Gupta and B.P. Sharma, JJ., directed the State and Indore Municipal Corporation (“IMC”) to file a detailed status report on the next date of hearing, stating how many persons were affected and admitted in the hospitals and what medical facilities were provided to them. [Ritesh Irani v. State of MP, WP No. 50628 of 2025, decided on 31-12-2025]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Arbitrary and Discriminatory’: Maharashtra Pollution Control Board circular restricting hazardous waste operations, quashed
In a writ petition challenging an amended circular dated 15-2-2024 and Clause 19 of a Consent to Operate (‘CTO’), the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar*, CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that the restrictions imposed were illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and beyond jurisdiction. The Court observed that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (‘MPCB’) lacked authority under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (‘HWM Rules’) to curtail an industry’s area of operation, and that such limits infringed the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Accordingly, both the circular and Clause 19 were quashed. [Green Gene Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5455, decided on 24-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Yamuna Flood Plains can’t be encroached under pretext of Graveyard or any other purpose; Restoration directions issued
In a writ petition raising serious concerns regarding Yamuna flood plains encroachment, particularly in areas falling within the river bed and adjoining drains and seeking judicial intervention to ensure enforcement of environmental norms and earlier directions of the Court mandating removal of such encroachments, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., granted conditional extension to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and issued mandatory restoration directions. [Shabnam Burney v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 8035 of 2024, Decided on 22-11-2025]
Read more HERE
HOUSING AND REAL ESTATE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Challenging ban on Airbnb by Cooperative Housing Society: Writ Not Maintainable; Go to Cooperative Court
While hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Suman Shyam and S. M. Modak, JJ., held that a member of a cooperative housing society cannot entertain paying guests in his apartment through platforms such as Airbnb until the society’s resolution prohibiting such activity is set aside or declared illegal. The Court emphasised that the respondent society is a private entity and therefore the writ petition challenging cooperative housing society’s Airbnb ban was not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of, granting liberty to pursue remedies before the Cooperative Court. [Mahesh K. Mehta v. Bharatiya Friend’s Coop. Housing Society Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5390, decided on 19-12-2025]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Part of ICC Sponsorship Payments, for using ICC Trademark, constitutes Taxable Royalty
In a writ petition centred around the controversy on whether consideration paid by petitioner — LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (“LGEIL”) to Global Cricket Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, for global partnership and advertising rights could, in part, be characterised as “royalty” on account of the right to use the ICC trademark, thereby withholding tax under Section 195 read with Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and Article 12 of the India—Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), a Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Vinod Kumar, JJ., affirmed the apportionment of 1/3rd of the ICC Sponsorship Payments as taxable Royalty in India and upheld that the revisional order. [LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9589, Decided on 24-11-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ex-parte injunction granted for protecting Actor Junior NTR’s Personality Rights
In a commercial suit was instituted by the plaintiff, Mr. Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao, a well-known Indian actor and cultural icon in Telugu cinema, seeking permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs against misappropriation of his personality and publicity rights, infringement of copyright, and unauthorised commercial exploitation of his name, image, likeness and associated attributes, a Single-Judge bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., grants ex-parte injunction protecting Junior NTR’s personality and publicity rights against unauthorised merchandise and digital exploitation [Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9417, decided on 22-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | John Doe order passed for protecting Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights
In a commercial suit instituted by plaintiff, Konidala Pawan Kalyan, seeking permanent injunction restraining misappropriation of personality and publicity rights, infringement of copyright, passing off, and allied reliefs, with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim protection against identified and unidentified infringers, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., passed John Doe order protecting Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights. [Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar, CS (COMM) 1336/2025, Decided on 22-12-2025]
Read more HERE
JUDICIARY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | [Judicial Services Exam] Candidates permitted to inspect answer books to ensure fairness; Re-evaluation of marks ruled out
In writ petitions concerning the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Competitive Examination—2022, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar*, CJ., and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that while candidates may be permitted to peruse their answer-books to ensure fairness, there exists no enforceable right to re-evaluation or recalculation of marks dehors the Rules. Emphasising the sanctity of the judicial service exam, the Court observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised only in exceptional circumstances to avoid grave injustice. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of in those terms. [Kartiki Awantika v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5427, decided on 24-12-2025]
Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Denial of permanency on Ground of HIV Status is arbitrary and unconstitutional; Relief granted to HIV+ sweeper
In a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (‘MRTU & PULP Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that denial of permanency to a sweeper on account of being HIV+ was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the employee continued to perform his duties despite his medical condition and that refusal of permanency amounted to unfair labour practice. Accordingly, the employee was declared permanent, though financial benefits were confined to the period prior to filing of the complaint in view of limitation. [Kumar Dashrath Kamble v. Bombay Hospital, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5437, decided on 23-12-2025]
Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Income from YouTube not quantified”: YouTuber wife’s maintenance claim, allowed
In a criminal revision filed, against the Family Court’s order rejecting a YouTuber wife’s maintenance claim, the Single Judge Bench of Harvir Singh, J., allowed the revision, holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside since the income details were not fully assessed as only a reference was made to the husband’s income and the wife’s income from YouTube was not quantified. [Farha Naz v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8133, decided on 09-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Working mothers can’t be compelled exhaust themselves while fathers evade responsibility of their children
In a Revision Petition challenging the impugned maintenance order, a Sigle-Judge bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma*, J., affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court regarding the petitioner’s obligation to provide maintenance of minor children and modified the quantum of interim maintenance from ₹30,000 per month to ₹25,000/- per month for all three children collectively. The Court further held that “Obligation to maintain minor children is not only a statutory duty but also a legal, moral, and social responsibility of both parents.” [H v. R, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9664, Decided on 27-12-2025]
Read more HERE
RENT AND TENANCY LAWS
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “How can a tenant claim a shop for life?”: 90-year-old shopkeeper’s eviction for expansion of landlord’s son’s shop, upheld
In a second appeal filed by a 90-year-old man against his eviction from his rented shop (“disputed shop”), the Single Judge Bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal since the appellant did not provide any evidence that he was running his business and the disputed shop was bona fidely required for the respondent’s non-residential purposes. [Khuman Singh v. Sanjay Goyal, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 9695, decided on 16-12-2025]
Read more HERE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Immediate takedown of AI-generated deepfake content infringing Shilpa Shetty Kundra’s privacy and dignity, ordered
In an application filed by Applicant—Plaintiff, Ms. Shilpa Shetty Kundra, seeking urgent ad-interim and interim reliefs for protection of her personality rights, privacy, dignity, and reputation, a Single-Judge bench of Advait M. Sethna, J., without delving into the merits of the matter, including the aspect of personality rights, grants urgent interim relief to restrain and remove AI-generated deepfake content infringing the applicant’s privacy, dignity, and reputation. [Shilpa Shetty Kundra v. Getoutlive.in, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5486, Decided on 26-12-2025]
Read more HERE
SUCCESSION
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Sale deed not binding: Daughter entitled to half share in ancestral property under Hindu Succession Act
In an appeal suit for partition of ancestral properties, a Single Judge Bench of R. Sakthivel, J., held that the daughter is entitled to ½ share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘Hindu Succession Act’). The Court clarified that the father’s presence on 09-09-2005 is not a prerequisite for enforcement of co-parcenery rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (‘2005 Amendment’). Rejecting the defendants’ plea of ouster and adverse possession, the Court observed that mere mutation of records or creation of mortgages cannot dislodge the presumption of joint possession among co-owners. Consequently, the Trial Court’s dismissal was set aside and the appeal allowed, with a preliminary decree recognising the plaintiff’s ½ share in the suit properties. [Sellammal v. Palanisamy, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 12152, decided on 11-12-2025]
Read more HERE
WILL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Propounder must dispel suspicious circumstances to sustain will’s validity; Rejection of Mother’s Will, upheld
In an appeal arising from a long-standing family dispute centering around two conflicting wills of the deceased parents, the issue was whether the will executed by the mother was valid. The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the suit citing suspicious circumstances. The Division Bench, upon appeal, initially set aside the dismissal, but the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Ultimately, the Division Bench of M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna*, JJ., held that although the will was formally proved, the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution were not dispelled by the propounder to the satisfaction of the Court in order to sustain the will’s validity, thereby disentitling her from Letters of Administration. [Myra Philomena Collaco v. Lilian Coelho, Appeal No. 574 of 2003, decided on 30-12-2025] Read more HERE