This week’s roundup traverses across High Courts to cover important legal developments such as Manappuram Finance consumer case, Sapna Choudhary’s passport, Misuse of Police Powers under Gangsters Act, unauthorised streaming of Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos, nylon manjha ban, and more.
ADMINSTRATIVE LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Shocked” at “widespread corruption’ as man manipulates DOB by 11 years; Directed registration of FIR
In a writ petition filed by a man seeking a change of his date of birth (“DOB”) in his passport, the Division Bench of Anish Kumar Gupta and Atul Sreedharan, JJ., remarked that the extent of fabrication of documents, which was directly the result of widespread corruption, was disturbing. Accordingly, the Court directed the Police Commissioner of Prayagraj to register an FIR under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(“BNS”), against the petitioner who manipulated DOB by 11 years and the officials concerned of the Gram Panchayat who issued the fraudulent birth certificate. [Shiv Shankar Pal v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine All 15, decided on 05-01-2026]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Shocking! Girls missing for 10+ years, Police unable to trace them”: SP, IGP pulled up for laxity in finding missing minor girls in MP
In a public interest litigation filed by a flesh trade survivor seeking protection and rescue of missing minor girls in MP, the Division Bench of G. S. Ahluwalia and Anil Verma, JJ., directed the Police Authorities to file replies mentioning the details of missing girls in Gwalior and Shivpuri. [P v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 176, decided on 07-01-2026]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral award rendered in undue haste after four-year delay and absence of hearing, quashed
In a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act), a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that the arbitral award dated 31-05-2021 was passed after expiry of mandate, without hearings, and in undue haste following directions of the General Manager. The Court noted that the arbitrator wrongly cited non-existent Covid-19 restrictions to justify years of delay, yet hurried to deliver the award during actual lockdowns. Finding clear misconduct and violation of natural justice, the Court annulled the award as unsustainable in law and in conflict with public policy. [Amit Engineers v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5527, decided on 08-12-2025]
Read more HERE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
DELHI HIGH COURT | Civil Suit to stall IBC Section 7 Dispute barred as NCLT has Exclusive Jurisdiction; Imposed ₹2 Lakh Costs for “Luxury Litigation”
In a civil suit seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs which, in substance, challenged the existence of debt, validity of assignment, and authenticity of documents which formed the basis of a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Single-Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., held that such a suit was barred under Sections 63 and 231 of the IBC, as the issues sought to be raised were required to be adjudicated by the NCLT under Sections 65, 75 and 60(5)(c) read with the NCLT Rules, 2016. The Court further imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the plaintiff for indulging in “luxury litigation,” observing that valuable judicial time had been wasted and another litigant had been deprived of hearing. [Roseland Buildtech (P) Ltd. v. Vihaan 43 Reality (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7, Decided on 05-01-2026]
Read more HERE
CONSUMER PROTECTION
KERALA HIGH COURT | Brand Ambassador/Endorser’s liability under Consumer Protection Act: Actor Mohanlal absolved from liability in Manappuram Finance consumer case
In a writ petition arose from proceedings initiated before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Manappuram Finance consumer case, against a leading film actor, Mohanlal Viswanathan, who was impleaded solely on the ground that he was the brand ambassador of a financial institution, a Single-Judge Bench of Ziyad Rahman A.A., J., absolved Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan from liability in consumer proceedings arising out of alleged false advertisement by Manappuram Finance and held that mere endorsement or appearance in advertisement does not create liability for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in absence of direct transactional nexus with consumer. [Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) No. 31700 of 2024, Decided on 29-11-2025]
Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
Bail
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “His right to earn livelihood cannot be curtailed”: Bail granted to father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter
The Division Bench of Siddharth and Prashant Mishra-I, JJ., granted bail to father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter, holding that there was a remote possibility of hearing of his appeal in the near future. [Pravesh Singh Tomar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8161, decided on 12-12-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “No such restriction placed on her”: Trial Court directed to grant passport NOC to Sapna Choudhary
In an application filed by performer Sapna Choudhary against the Trial Court’s order rejecting her request for an No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) for renewal of her passport and permission to travel abroad, the Single Judge Bench of Pankaj Bhatia, J., allowed the application, holding that the impugned order was violative of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution as no such restrictions had been placed upon her for travelling abroad in the criminal case or bail order. [Sapna v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 19, decided on 07-01-2026]
Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail denied to two men for staging demonstration, manhandling police inside Courtroom in Ashutosh Chaitanya Case
In a set of two anticipatory bail applications filed by two men who staged demonstration and obstructed police inside Courtroom in Ashutosh Chaitanya case, the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the applications, holding that, prima facie, their conduct could not be viewed lightly, particularly when it involved interference with judicial proceedings and physical obstruction of law enforcement officers. [Sanjeet Kumar Burman v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 357, decided on 06-01-2026]
Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Anguished over callous approach of Investigating Officer; Anticipatory bail denied to alleged Kingpin of Rohingya Funding Syndicate
In an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) rejecting his anticipatory bail application in case under Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘Foreigners Act’), the Division Bench of Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Rajesh Singh Chauhan, JJ., expressed serious displeasure and anguish on the callous and careless approach of the Investigating Agency, particularly the Investigating Officers, for not taking appropriate and proper steps to apprehend the appellant in an issue where not only allegations were related for committing cognizable offences but on account of those offences the security, safety, peace and harmony of the country might likely be jeopardized. Accordingly, the Court denied the appellant’s plea in the present case. [Abdul Ghaffar v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 20, decided on 9-1-2026]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘After giving birth, wife needs her best companion’: Six week’s bail granted to husband in NDPS case
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of interim bail for two months to look after his wife and newly born child, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth, J., held that at the given stage, a wife would require company of her best companion, that is, her husband. Thus, the Court granted six weeks bail to husband to support wife after child birth. [Ajay Kumar v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 70149 of 2025(O&M), decided on 8-1-2025]
Read more HERE
Practice and Procedure
DELHI HIGH COURT | Magistrate can’t discharge accused at Section 251 CrPC stage in Summons Case after issuance of summons
In a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the discharge order dated 06-02-2023, in a summons case at the stage of Section 251 CrPC, a Single-Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., set aside the discharge order and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for further proceedings. The Court held that — Magistrates cannot recall summons in complaint-based summons cases; Magistrate can’t discharge accused at Section 251 CrPC stage; Discharge under Section 239 CrPC is impermissible in summons trials; and Section 251 CrPC is not a stage for adjudicating the sufficiency of evidence. [Tulip Multispecialty Hospital (P) Ltd. v. Akhil Saxena, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 63, Decided on 05-11-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Contempt proceedings against Sub-Inspector for Arrest without Section 41-A CrPC notice, closed and unconditional apology accepted
In a contempt petition initiated by the Court on its own motion seeking initiation of criminal contempt against the respondent/contemnor, a Sub-Inspector posted at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi for arrest without Section 41-A CrPC Notice in violation of Supreme Court Guidelines, a Division Bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, JJ., accepted the unconditional apology and closed the contempt proceedings. [Court on its Own Motion v. Yogesh Poonia, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10519, Decided on 22-12-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Summoning of accused in decade-old bank fraud case based solely on S. 161 CrPC statements, stayed
In a petition challenging the legality of a summoning order passed at an advanced stage of a criminal trial in a decade-old bank fraud prosecution case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Single-Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., stayed the operation of the summoning order based solely on Section 161 CrPC Statements till next date of hearing. [Manoj Garg v. CBI, CRL.M.C. 132/2026 & CRL.M.A. 488/2026, Decided on 13-01-2026] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Alleged Misuse of Police Powers under Gangsters Act: UP Home, Police Department slammed for non-compliance with Court orders, “lackadaisical approach” flagged
In an application filed for quashing of two FIRs, the Court had been questioning alleged misuse of police powers under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”). After repeated failures of the State Authorities to comply with the Court orders, the Single Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., issued a ‘show-cause notice’ to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) seeking an explanation of the reasons and the legal impediments, if any, which resulted in the repeated failure of the Home Department to furnish the specific and pointed details sought by the Court. [Rajendra Tyagi v. State of U.P., Application u/S 482 No. — 6547 of 2025, decided on 09-01-2026]
Read more HERE
Quashment of Proceedings/FIR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Stranger cannot be drawn into proceedings under Section 498-A IPC: Proceedings against neighbor quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the petitioner, neighbor of a couple, challenging the proceeding wherein she was alleged to have influenced the behavior of the husband to torture his wife, a Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna*, J., held that a stranger, the petitioner in the present case, cannot be drawn into the proceedings for offences under Section 498-A of the IPC. [Asha G. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 34, decided on 6-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Restraining entry in discharge of duty not Wrongful Restraint or Outraging Modesty; FIR against Security Guard, quashed
In an application filed under Sections 482 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges against petitioners, two security guards, who were accused of wrongfully restraining and assaulting the modesty of the widow of a company director while preventing her from entering office premises, a Single-Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that petitioners acted in good faith in discharge of their duty as security guards and consequently quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and orders framing charges under Sections 341/34 and 354 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). [Manoj Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 16, Decided on 05-01-2026]
Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | Memo of Charges issued against Registrar by Kerala University VC regarding Bharat Mata Portrait Row, stayed
In a writ petition revolving around the authority of the Vice Chancellor (‘VC’) to invoke Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (‘Act’), and issue a Memo of Charges against the Registrar of the University in regard to the ‘Bharat Mata Portrait Row’, a Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., while allowing the petition, held that the invocation of Section 10(13) of the Act to issue such a memo was without authority, particularly in the absence of any emergency. Thus, the Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned memo until further orders, directing the VC to explain the circumstances under which such powers were exercised. [K.S. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 737 of 2026, decided on 12-1-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Right to higher education cannot be curtailed lightly: MBBS Seat of candidate named as CBI witness, restored
In a writ petition challenging NEET-UG 2024 admission cancellation on the basis of alleged examination irregularities, despite the petitioner-candidate not being arraigned as an accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation, a Single-Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh,* J., held that a student’s valuable right accrued by clearing a national entrance examination must be protected and cannot be defeated on unjustifiable grounds. Holding that right to higher education cannot be curtailed lightly, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his MBBS classes in accordance with the curriculum. [Harshit Agrawal v. National Testing Agency, W.P.(C) 12514/2025, Decided on 07-01-2026] Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAW
Cruelty
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Forced unnatural sex by husband is cruelty under S. 498A IPC, not rape”: Rape, Section 377 IPC charges quashed
In a petition filed by a husband for quashing a rape case filed against him by his wife, the Single Judge Bench of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J., partially allowed the petition, holding that forced unnatural sex by a husband is cruelty, but cannot be prosecuted as rape. [Shubham Mangal v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 177, decided on 07-01-2025]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Divorce granted as husband’s blackmail with objectionable photos and threats to upload them on social media amounted to mental cruelty
In appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging dismissal of a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that the conduct of the husband in blackmailing and humiliating the wife using her past history and objectionable photographs is mental cruelty. The Court emphasised that such conduct broke the trust essential to marriage, and therefore quashed the Family Court’s judgment, granting dissolution of marriage. [X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 24, decided on 07-01-2026]
Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Concealment of age and murder conviction before marriage amounts to mental cruelty, destroys trust
In an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench comprising Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that concealment of material facts, namely the wife’s actual age and her prior conviction for life imprisonment in a murder case, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court observed that such concealment destroyed the trust which forms the foundation of marital life and accordingly upheld the Family Court’s judgment dissolving the marriage. [Ranthi Kumari Devi v. Suresh Kumar Sahu, F.A. No.137 of 2022, decided on 08-01-2026]
Read more HERE
Custody
DELHI HIGH COURT | Custody of one child does not dilute husband’s duty to maintain wife and other child living with her
In a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order of assessing the husband’s income and directing payment of interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a Single-Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., modified the impugned order and reduced the interim maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹17,500/- per month, payable to wife and the minor daughter. The Court held that custody of one child does not dilute husband’s maintenance obligation under Section 125 CrPC to maintain wife and other child living with her. [A v. B, CRL.REV.P. 409/2024 & CRL.M.A. 9309/2024, Decided on 05-01-2026]
Read more HERE
Maintenance
KERALA HIGH COURT | Hindu wife can claim maintenance from husband’s immovable property beyond HAMA
In a matter addressing whether a Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA’), the three-Judge Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan and G. Girish*, JJJ., held that a Hindu wife possesses the right to claim maintenance from her husband’s immovable property dehors HAMA, and that such a right transforms into an enforceable claim once legal proceedings are initiated or maintenance is denied.. [X v. Y, ICR (Mat. A) No.23 of 2025, decided on 14-1-2026]
Read more HERE
ALLHABAD HIGH COURT | Women’s sacrifice of gainful employment often portrayed ‘devilish’ to extract money after separation: Maintenance matter remanded to Family Judge
In a revision filed by the Revisionist 1-wife, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’), against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby her application for maintenance against Opposite Party 2-husband was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Garima Prashad, J., took note of women’s sacrifice of employment for family and held that it is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed and when a marital discord arises and parties get separated, then the very sacrifice is often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband. Further, the Court stated that the maintenance of Rs. 3,000 awarded to the minor son under the said order meager amount and set aside the said order remanding the matter to the Family Judge for fresh determination of maintenance. [Suman Verma v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 14, decided on 8-1-2026]
Read more HERE
Marriage, Divorce, Other Unions and Children
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Forced marriage not conducive to healthy society; Major girl can decide for herself: Protection ordered
In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court considered the issue of a major girl being compelled into marriage without her consent. The Division Bench of Harish Tandon, CJ., and M.S. Raman, J., held that the decision of the girl is paramount and her consent must be respected. The Court emphasised that when a girl is not ready for marriage, giving her in marriage by using extraneous force is not conducive for a healthy society. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to ensure her safety and freedom. [Ajay Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, WPCRL No. 120 of 2025, decided on 06-01-2026]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Biological father’s parental rights can’t be undermined due to matrimonial discord”: Insertion of father’s name in son’s school records, directed
In a writ appeal filed by a father seeking insertion of his name in his child’s school records, the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Anil Verma, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the parental rights of a biological father cannot be undermined at the altar of dispute between the couple. [Vickramh Kkalmady v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 9895, decided on 17-12-2025]
Read more HERE
Practice and Procedure
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Karta’s liability for HUF debts is personal and unlimited; ‘Seat Court’ retains jurisdiction to enforce award beyond territorial limits
In an interim application for relief in aid of enforcing a final arbitral award, the Court had to decide whether, as the ‘Seat Court’ under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’), it retained jurisdiction to entertain execution and grant interim relief despite the debtor’s assets lying outside its territory, and whether the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) was personally liable for execution of the award. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that the Court indeed possessed the jurisdiction, and that the Karta of a HUF bears personal and unlimited liability for HUF’s unsatisfied debts, thereby allowing enforcement of the award against his personal assets. [Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises, Interim Application No. 5306 of 2025, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE
Validity of Marriage
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Second marriage during subsistence of first remains void despite first wife’s death; Family pension denied to second wife
In a matter concerning entitlement to family pension under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (‘Rules’), the Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., held that a second wife, whose marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, is not entitled to family pension, as such marriage is void in law. The Court noted that the Rules are payable to the widow on the death of an employee, subject to compliance with certain terms and conditions, and that to be a widow, a valid marriage between the woman and the deceased employee is a sine qua non; what is void ab initio does not become valid by the happening of a subsequent event. [Kankalata Dwibedi v. State of Orissa, W.A. NO. 1460 of 2025, decided on 13-01-2026]
Read more HERE
FILMS, CINEMAS, VIDEOS, TELEVISION AND RADIO
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Internet service providers and cable operators barred from unauthorised streaming of “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos”
While hearing a suit seeking remedies in respect of apprehended infringement of copyright in the cinematographic film “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos”, slated for release on 16012026, a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that irreparable injury would be caused unless ad interim relief is granted as , in view of the expansive nature of the relief claimed, the legitimate business interests of one or more respondents may be affected. Accordingly, ad interim injunction as prayed for was granted until 02-02-2026, subject to the applicant indemnifying the respondents against potential losses and the internet service providers and cable operators were barred from unauthorised streaming of “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos”. [Aamir Khan Productions (P) Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., O.A. Nos. 27 and 28 of 2026, decided on 12-01-2026]
Read more HERE
HEALTH AND MEDICAL LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Suo Motu Cognizance taken as Patients & Kin Brave Cold Outside Hospitals, Night Shelters Overflow
Based on news report published in The Hindu dated 11-01-2026, titled “Night shelters packed, patients, kin brave the cold outside hospitals,” a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., took Suo motu cognizance with direction to register and list the matter before the Public Interest Litigation Bench for further consideration and appropriate directions. [Court on its Own Motion v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 144, Decided on 12-01-2026]
Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Strict enforcement of nylon manjha ban ordered; Granted compensation of Rs 2 lakh to injured victims
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the menace of nylon manja, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar*, JJ., held that despite an express statutory and executive prohibition, nylon manja continues to be freely available and widely used, resulting in grievous injuries and deaths. The Court emphasised that enforcement had been episodic and ritualistic, and directed constitution of a Special Task Force (‘STF’), intelligence-driven enforcement, monitoring of online platforms, and interim compensation to victims. [Registrar (Judicial) v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 114, decided on 09-01-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Rs 25, 000 deterrent fine imposed for nylon manja use; Fixed parental responsibility, sets up victim welfare fund
In a Suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the menace of nylon manja, the Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., held that despite repeated orders since 2021, rampant use of nylon manja continues, resulting in grievous injuries and deaths. The Court emphasised that in absence of a statute or regulation framed by the State Government, deterrent punishment by way of fine was necessary. Accordingly, fines of Rs 25,000 on individuals (recoverable from parents in case of minors) and Rs 2,50,000 on vendors were imposed, with the collected amounts to be deposited in a “Public Welfare Account” for treatment of victims. [Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 113, decided on 12-01-2026]
Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Minor found using Manjha? Parents, Guardians could face action as Chinese Nylon Thread is cracked down
In a suo motu PIL registered for the illegal sale and use of Chinese Nylon Thread (Manjha), the Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, JJ., directed that the State shall also publish in the media that the guardian may be held liable for any minor found using Chinese manjha [Suo Moto PIL v. State of MP, WP No. 48092 of 2025, decided on 12-01-2026]
Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Copyright
DELHI HIGH COURT | Piracy webites illegally streaming ‘Friends’, ‘Stranger Things’, ‘Batman’ taken down; Warner Bros wins Dynamic+ Injunction
In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking grant of a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 47 from infringing upon the copyrighted works of the plaintiff Warner Bros., the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, granted a dynamic+ injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The Court also ordered the take down and blocking of websites illegally streaming and distributing several copyrighted works of the Warner Bros including movies and web-series like Friends, Stranger Things, Batman, Suicide Squad etc. [Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc v. Animesugez. to, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10520, decided on 18-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ad-hoc licensing agreement extended in PPL-Pass Code Hospitality copyright dispute
In the PPL Pass Code Hospitality copyright dispute alleging the unauthorised use of copyrighted sound recordings, where an ad hoc arrangement for payment of licence fees had previously been put in place, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J., held that this interim arrangement should continue. The Court noted that the question regarding the plaintiff’s authority to grant copyright licences is presently pending before the Supreme Court, and therefore the existing mechanism for licence fee payments should not be disturbed at this stage. The Court further directed Defendant 1 to deposit an additional amount towards ad hoc licence fees, which the plaintiff may partially withdraw, as permitted. [Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Pass Code Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 137, decided on 9-1-2026]
Read more HERE
Patent
DELHI HIGH COURT | Execution of money decrees stayed in Philips DVD Patent dispute
While hearing a batch of appeals filed by appellants seeking stay of execution of money decrees passed in favour of the respondent, Koninklijke Philips NV, in the Philips DVD Patent case, the Division Bench of *C. Hari Shankar, J and Om Prakash Shukla, J, held that an award of damages cannot be founded on conjectures or assumptions, and the aspect of number of replicated DVDs of the decree fell within the narrow exception for staying money decrees. Accordingly, the Court granted a conditional stay on execution of money decrees. [Sukesh Behl v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3, decided on 5-1-2026]
Read more HERE
Trademark
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘SOCIAL’ declared as a well-known trade mark
In an application seeking grant of a permanent and mandatory injunction against infringement of the ‘SOCIAL’ trade mark, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that use of the word ‘Social’ in the defendant’s name amounted to infringement and passing off. Considering the long, continuous and uninterrupted usage of the mark by the plaintiff, the Court declared ‘SOCIAL’ a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’). [Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Shake Social, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 108, decided on 9-1-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | “Siyaram” trademark protected; Dishonest use by interim injunction restrained
In a suit filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’), seeking an injunction against infringement and passing off of the registered “Siyaram” trade mark, a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case. The Court emphasised that the plaintiff had been the registered proprietor of the word mark since 1986, with multiple registrations dating back to 1984, and found that the defendants’ adoption of “Siyaram” was dishonest and intended to exploit the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. Consequently, the Court granted interim relief, observing that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that continued use of the mark would cause irreparable injury. [Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. v. Stanford Siyaram Fashion (P) Ltd., Notice of Motion No. 22 of 2013, decided on 13-01-2026]
Read more HERE
LAND LAW
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Beneficiary party’s presence indispensable for effective determination of compensation in land acquisition matters: Matter remitted back matter to Reference Court
While considering a batch of 67 writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority enhancing the compensation payable to the respondents-landowners under Section 64
Read more HERE
RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
KERALA HIGH COURT | S. 9 of Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act struck down; Guruvayoor Devaswom’s statutory autonomy upheld over appointments
In an appeal revolving around whether Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (‘KDRB Act’), which empowered the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (‘Board’) to prepare select lists for appointments to posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom, could override the statutory autonomy conferred under Section 19 of the + (‘GD Act’), the Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ., held that the KDRB Act, being a general enactment, could not supersede the special provisions of the GD Act. Consequently, Section 9 of the KDRB Act was declared unconstitutional and inoperative, with the Court directing that all future appointments must be undertaken strictly under the GD Act. [Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 230, decided on 9-1-2026]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Name change permitted in marriage certificate after woman’s religious conversion under Article 226
In a case revolving around the issue whether a person’s name change after religious conversioncould be incorporated into the marriage certificate issued under the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008 (‘Rules of 2008’), a Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, allowed the petition, holding that although major changes in the marriage register are barred under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to do complete justice. Accordingly, the Court directed the Registrar to incorporate an additional entry in the marriage register reflecting the petitioner’s new name and issue a revised certificate. [Aayisha Muhsin v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 231, decided on 5-1-2026]
Read more HERE
RENT AND TENANCY LAWS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Tenant can’t dispute admitted tenant-landlord relationship by plea of oral sale; Eviction on Bona fide requirement, upheld
In the Revision petitions challenging the eviction orders passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, whereby the Rent Controller directed eviction of the tenants from two commercial shops on the ground of the landlord’s bona fide requirement, a Single-Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., held that a tenant cannot dispute landlord-tenant relationship oral sale plea and hence, upheld the eviction. The Court held that the landlord had established a genuine, natural and sincere need for the premises for himself and his son, and that the tenants had failed to raise any triable issue. [Sandeep Dhawan v. Amarjeet Singh Kohli, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 28, Decided on 05-01-2026]
Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Deceased tenant’s name cannot be removed from Record of Rights through Writ; Mutation proceedings essential
While hearing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Ananda Chandra Behera*, J., held that deletion of the name of a deceased recorded tenant from the Record of Rights (‘RoR’) cannot be ordered directly in writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the proper course is to file a mutation application before the Tahasildar, who shall conduct enquiry and pass necessary orders. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Tahasildar. [Jayanti Biswas v. State of Odisha, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 100, Decided on 08-01-2026]
Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
PATNA HIGH COURT | ‘Quasi-judicial authority has no power to review unless statutorily granted’: Panchayat Teachers reinstated after 10 years
In a writ application filed by two panchayat teachers whose appointment was disputed for more than 10 years, the Single Judge Bench of Alok Kumar Sinha, J., allowed the application, holding that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar (“District Appellate Authority”), which allowed their claim and later overturned it, had no power to review, recall or reopen its own final order. [Kumari Bandana v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3570, decided on 23-12-2025]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Independent satisfaction required for dismissal under Article 311(2)(b): Deputy SP, CBI dismissed for illegal gratification, reinstated
The issue for consideration in the present case was whether the respondents were justified in invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, read with Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [‘CCS (CCA) Rules’] to dismiss the petitioner from service without holding a departmental inquiry and whether the Tribunal was correct in sustaining such action. The Division Bench of Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain*, JJ., noted that Respondent 3, who was only the supervising officer and not the Disciplinary Authority, had recommended the petitioner’s dismissal before any independent application of mind by the competent authority. Further, the disciplinary authority merely agreed with the reasons suggested by Respondent 3. The Court stated that this strikes at the foundation of Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution, which requires the authority to reach its own independent satisfaction and any satisfaction borrowed or induced from another source is no satisfaction in the eyes of law. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits. [Neeraj Agarwal v. DOPT, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9613, decided on 24-12-2025]
Read more HERE
ALLHABAD HIGH COURT | Government servants’ transfer lies exclusively with State Government; Courts to interfere when malice involved
In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction for respondent authorities to transfer Respondent 6 to another district on the ground that since long, he was working in one block and thereby he had been vital in embezzlement of government fund meant for development of different villages, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ., held that the transfer and posting of government servant lies in exclusive administrative domain of the State Government and Courts cannot interfere with government servant transfers unless the orders are vitiated due to malice or are in violation of any statutory provision. [Ful Chandra v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 18, decided on 7-1-2026]
Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Can Compassionate Appointment be claimed if a Family Member is Earning?
In a writ appeal filed by the son of a deceased SECL employee against the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., Arvind Kumar Verma, J., rejected the appeal, holding that since the deceased employee’s wife was employed, the son was disentitled from consideration. Thus, the Court upheld the order denying compassionate appointment to the son and reaffirmed that a compassionate appointment, if a family member earns, is not automatically available. [Minketan Chandra v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, WA No. 964 of 2025, decided on 07-01-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | IFS probationers bound by amended Probation Rules; Cannot sit in UPSC examination during training
In a batch of writ petitions challenging a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing petitioners’ claims that they asserted vested rights and legitimate expectation to be governed by the rules prevailing on the date of entry into service therefore, they have a right to appear in UPSC Civil Services Examination during training, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Amit Mahajan, JJ., upheld the Tribunal’s order barring Indian Forest Service (IFS) probationers appearing in UPSC Exam during training. [Abhimanyu Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 171/2026, Decided on 13-01-2026]
Read more HERE
TAX LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Income Tax Department slammed for 8-Year delay in Refund to Microsoft; Refund of ₹5.37 Crore with interest, ordered
In a writ petition filed by assessee, Microsoft Corporation, along with applicable interest, arising from Fringe Benefit Tax, a Division Bench of Dinesh Mehta* and Vinod Kumar, JJ., while expressing shock for “not paying the refundable amount to an assessee for eight years,” directed the respondents to pay refund to Microsoft along with applicable interest, including interest under Section 244-A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Income Tax Act). [Microsoft Corpn. India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 83, Decided on 06-01-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Know why Virtual Service PE to Clifford Chance under DTAA was rejected
In appeals under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Income Tax Department, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (‘Tribunal’s’) order dated 14-3-2024 (‘impugned order’) deleting additions made on the premise that the assessee did not have a virtual service permanent establishment in India, the Division Bench of V Kameswar Rao, J and Vinod Kumar, J, upheld the Tribunal’s order. The Court held that the assessee did not constitute either a service permanent establishment or a virtual service permanent establishment in India for the relevant assessment years, and consequently, the receipts earned by the assessee from Indian clients were not taxable in India under the DTAA. [CIT v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8771, decided on 4-12-2025]
Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Employee entitled to TDS credit despite non- deposit of deducted tax by the employer
In a writ petition seeking quashing of intimations sent by the Income Tax Authorities regarding mismatch of TDS, the Division Bench of *A.S. Supehia, J and Pranav Trivedi, J, held that the petitioner pilot was entitled to receive TDS credit despite the TDS not deposited by employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failing to remit the deducted tax to the Central Government. [Arpit Pravinbhai Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, No. of 2025, decided on 23-12-2025] Read more HERE