HIGH COURT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 2026 [19-25 Jan] | Bar Association Not ‘State’; Forcing an arrestee to strip; “AKASA AIR” trademark misused; Manish Sisodia’s 2020 Patparganj Assembly Win; and more

This week’s roundup of High Court Cases from January 2026 delves into various important legal developments, such as unverified AI-Generated Submissions by advocate, seal on unrecognized Madarsa, Bar Association Not ‘State’, defamation complaint against RSS Member, Forcing an arrestee to strip institutional humiliation, Medical negligence, Five-year delay in SIT formation reflects police unconcern, Manish Sisodia’s 2020 Patparganj Assembly Win, Somnath Bharti’s Election Petition, Aaj Tak trade mark infringement, Flipkart’s patent, misuse of “AKASA AIR” trademark, Railway employee travelling on Privilege Pass, Assignment of leasehold rights not ‘Supply of Services’.

ADVOCATE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Rs 50,000 costs imposed on litigant for unverified AI- Generated Submissions

In a writ petition revolving around whether a licensee occupying a residential flat under a registered leave and license agreement could resist eviction by claiming commercial use and asserting a lien arising out of a separate film production contract, a Single Judge Bench of M.M. Sathaye, J., held that the Revisional Authority had misconstrued the agreement and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering extraneous documents, and directed that the eviction order be restored. The Court condemned respondent’s unverified AI-generated submissions which wasted judicial time and ordered immediate possession of the premises to be handed over to the petitioner. [Deepak v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 209, decided on 7-1-2026] Read more HERE

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim relief against IRCTC’s termination of catering contract refused; multiple passenger complaints and unsatisfactory service cited

While hearing an appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging the interim order dated 12-1-2026 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Sole Arbitrator in the Delhi International Arbitration Centre had dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 17 of the Act, the Single Judge Bench of the Mini Pushkarna, J, reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 37 of the Act and held that in view of the persistent passenger and consumer complaints against the appellant, IRCTC was prima facie justified in terminating the catering contract. Finding no perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. [R.K. Associates & Hoteliers (P) Ltd. v. IRCTC, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 212, decided on 19-1-2026] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Systemic inaction” by revenue authorities flagged; guidelines issued for Enforcement of Orders under Section 24 of UP Revenue Code, 2006

In a batch of writ petitions filed against non-execution of demarcation orders passed under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (“the Code”), the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., allowed the petitions, holding that the respondents concerned, particularly the Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”). and Collector, were under law bound to ensure that orders under Section 24 are effectively enforced. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents, particularly the SDOs concerned, to execute all subject orders in the instant batch of writ petitions, within four weeks, strictly as per the approved site memo/demarcation report, by ensuring affixation of boundary marks and also possession restoration, wherever required. [Meena Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine All 8494, decided on 18-12-2025] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Being unrecognized does not imply closure; seal on Madarsa to be lifted

While considering a writ petition where the validity of an order passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer was challenged whereby the petitioner-Madarsa was directed to close operations as it was functioning without any recognition, a Single Judge Bench of Subhash Vidyarthi, J., held that there is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016 (‘UP Madarsa Regulation’) enabling the authorities to stop the functioning of a Madarsa on the ground that it was not recognized. [Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza v. State of UP, WRIT C No. 307 of 2026, decided on 16-1-2026] Read more HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Safe keeping of relevant records, case documents directed

In a batch of writ petitions filed regarding the Indore Water Contamination Crisis, the Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, JJ., directed the respondents to continue complying with the interim directions and also directed the Collector, Indore, and the Commissioner of the Indore Municipal Corporation (“IMC”) to ensure that the relevant records relating to the subject matter of the petition, the record of tender of laying drinking water line in Bhagirathpura, the 2018 water sample report, etc., were kept in safe custody. [Mahesh Garg v. State of MP, WP No. 50641 of 2025, decided on 20-01-2026] Read more HERE

ARBITRATION

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Noncompete covenant not binding on non-signatory employee/third-party organiser; relief to Messe Frankfurt denied

In a petition raising the issue whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) could be granted to restrain imminent trade exhibitions on the allegation that they breached noncompete and non-solicit covenants under an Asset Purchase Agreement (‘APA’) and its amendment, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., denied relief to petitioner (‘Messe Frankfurt’) under Section 9 of the A&C Act and observed that noncompete covenant is not binding on non-signatory employee or third-party organiser. The Court noted the delay by Messe Frankfurt in filing the petition, absence of adequate material to establish connivance, non-binding nature of the covenant vis-à-vis the non-signatory former employee, and the independent third-party status of the ostensible organiser, and held that no prima facie case was made out and consequently declined to grant any interim relief, dismissing the petition. [Messse Frankfurt Trade Fairs India (P) Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions (India) Ltd., Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 40115 of 2025, decided on 21-1-2026] Read more HERE

CIVIL PROCEDURE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Single appeal maintainable against common judgment in suit and counter-claim, provided proper court fee is paid

In a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), challenging the concurrent judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J., held that a single appeal was maintainable against a common judgment in a suit and counter-claim, provided proper court fee was paid. The Court clarified that a prior purchaser not impleaded in a suit for specific performance is entitled only to a declaration that the decree is not binding on him, and not to cancellation of the decree itself. It was further observed that a bare suit for injunction is not maintainable where the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, and the second appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. [K. Kandasamy v. P. Natarajan, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 14, decided on 02-01-2026] Read more HERE

JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Once plaint is returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, suit proceeds de novo; Earlier pleadings and evidence are non est

In a petition revolving around whether, after a plaint is returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and presented before the competent court, the suit must proceed de novo, permitting a fresh written statement, or whether the 120-day bar under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) would apply, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., set aside the impugned order and held that once plaint returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, suit proceeds de novo before the competent court and the earlier pleadings and evidence are non est. Thus, the defendants have the right to file fresh written statements. [Mohammad Shaif Bhat v. Rafi Ahmad Bhat, 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 1208, decided on 5-12-2025] Read more HERE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

DELHI HIGH COURT | Bar Association Not ‘State’, No Writ of Mandamus maintainable for alleged trespass in Court Chamber

In an intra-court appeal arising from a dispute concerning possession and use of a lawyers’ chamber at the Patiala House Courts and the scope of writ jurisdiction against a Bar Association, a Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,* CJ., and Tejas Karia, J., dismissed the appeal and held that a Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is a private body of lawyers and does not perform public functions. It is neither “State” nor an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued against it under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association, LPA 368/2024, CM APPL. 27164/2024 & CM APPL. 49413/2025, Decided on 16-01-2026] Read more HERE

CRIMINAL LAW

DELHI HIGH COURT | Rubbing penis against child’s private part not ‘Penetrative Sexual Assault’ under POCSO Act; sentence modified

In a criminal appeal filed by accused, a Doctor, challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Section 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for committing sexual assault upon a minor girl aged about nine years inside his clinic, a Single Bench of Chandrasekharan Sudha,* J., held that rubbing penis against child’s private part does not constitute ‘Penetrative Sexual Assault’ under POCSO Act but amounts to ‘aggravated sexual assault’ under Section 9(m), punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Court modified the sentence awarded by the trial court to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years. [Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 215, Decided on 15-01-2026] Read more HERE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | “Section 498A IPC not panacea for all matrimonial ills”; FIR against husband and his family quahsed

While considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) where quashing of FIR, against the Petitioner 1-husband and his family, under Sections 498-A and 504 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (‘DP Act’) was sought, a Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills, it is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so willful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. Hence, the Court quashed the said FIR and stated that Section 498A of the IPC did not criminalize incompatibility, nor did it punish imperfect marriages. [Abuzar Ahmed v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 54, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Amit Malviya’s undertaking enforced; defamation complaint against RSS Member stayed

In an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) filed by Santanu Sinha, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) member, who was being prosecuted for criminal defamation against Amit Malviya (‘respondent 2’), a BJP politician, President of I.T. Cell, Co-In charge of West Bengal Chapter, regarding a Facebook post, seeking direction against respondent 2 to comply with and abide by his undertaking as recorded in order dated 03-03-2025, a Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., directs respondent to remain bound by undertaking and not to press complaint in Amit Malviya defamation case after Facebook posts were taken down. [Santanu Sinha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 218, Decided on 16-01-2026] Read more HERE

GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Bodily freedom recognized even in a marriage’; anticipatory bail to husband accused of sexually assaulting wife refused

In an application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, where the applicant-husband had been accused of sexually abusing and mentally and physically torturing his wife, the Single Judge Bench of Divyesh A. Joshi, J, rejected the application stating that the severity of allegations made out in the FIR demanded custodial interrogation. Recognising bodily freedom in married couples, Court also stated that even though marriage has been seen as an automatic grant of sexual consent since decades, the modern legal frameworks increasingly recognize the bodily freedom of an individual, even within a marital relationship. [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, Crl. Misc. No. 26922 of 2025, decided on 5-1-2026] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | DNA doesn’t lie! POCSO Conviction of father who impregnated minor daughter upheld

In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, accused of committing rape, criminal intimidation, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his own minor daughter, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Madhu Jain, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that the conviction in was based on credible testimony corroborated by conclusive scientific evidence and therefore, no interference was warranted with the POCSO conviction of the accuses father who impregnated minor daughter. [DRY v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 1494/2025, Decided on 15-01-2026] Read more HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | Mere statement of aggrieved person disclosing prima facie ingredients of the offence sufficient to sustain charges under SC/ST Act

In an appeal revolving around whether the accused was entitled to discharge from charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J., held that the Special Court’s order dismissing the plea of discharge did not warrant interference as the aggrieved person’s (complainant) testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the charge under the SC/ST Act, as it disclosed a prima facie case against the accused. [Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 588, decided on 13-1-2026] Read more HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Forcing an arrestee to strip, photographing him/her and circulating images is institutional humiliation; direct assault on human dignity

While considering a petition raising disturbing practice alleging that whenever a person is arrested, the police compel such arrestees to sit at the police station and strip, thereafter, taking colored photographs and circulating the same widely through newspapers and various social media platforms, a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., held that forcing an arrestee to strip or partially disrobing such person, photographing him or her in a degrading condition, and thereafter circulating those images on social media or in newspapers, amounts to institutional humiliation and a direct assault on human dignity. [Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224 of 2026, decided on 20-1-2026] Read more HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Medical negligence cases should be referred to doctors’ board for independent & competent opinion; Complaint against practicing doctor quashed

In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the petitioners for allegedly not properly performing surgery of respondent’s wife resulting in her death, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., held that the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners and did not refer the matter to a board of doctors for obtaining an independent and competent medical opinion. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition. [Vijay Kumar Dhawan v. Gurpreet Singh, CRM-M No. 15772 of 2026 (O&M), decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Major victim cannot be detained in protective home against her wish; Detention under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unsustainable

While hearing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of N.J. Jamadar, J., held that detention of a major victim in a protective home under Section 17(4) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘PITA’) is impermissible when justified solely on the grounds of absence of relatives or financial support. The Court emphasised that prostitution per se is not a criminal offence under the Act, and victims cannot be punished or confined against their wishes. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge were quashed, and the victim’s immediate release was directed. [XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 185, decided on 16-01-2026] Read more HERE

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Five-year delay in SIT formation reflects police unconcern; State directed to frame guidelines to regulate outsiders linked to trafficking

While considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench comprising Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., observed that the five-year delay in constituting the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) after the lodging of the FIR reflected serious unconcern on the part of the police authorities. The Court emphasised that crimes of child trafficking cause devastating consequences for the physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional development of children. In this backdrop, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’) to explain the steps taken against the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station and further requested the Home Department to frame appropriate guidelines to regulate the entry of outsiders into the State who may be involved in human trafficking. [Chandramuni Urain v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (Cr) (DB) No. 628 of 2025, decided on 21-01-2026] Read more HERE

ELECTION LAW

DELHI HIGH COURT | Election petition challenging Manish Sisodia’s 2020 Patparganj Assembly Win dismissed

In an election petition filed under Sections 33A, 80, 81, 125, 126 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Representation of the People Act), seeking to set aside the election of the respondent and for declaration of the election as void, a Single-Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the election petition against Manish Sisodia for want of cause of action and non-compliance with statutory requirements under Representation of the People Act. [Pratap Chandra v. Manish Sisodia, Election Petition No. 1 of 2020, Decided on 17-01-2026] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Somnath Bharti’s Election Petition dismissed; Non-joinder of alleged corrupt candidate held fatal and incurable

In an election petition filed under Sections 80, 80-A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (ROPA) seeking to declare the election of the respondent as null and void, alleging that the election was vitiated by corrupt practices within the meaning of Sections 123, 127-A and 130 of the Representation of the People Act and was liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(b) and (d), a Single-Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., dismissed the petition and held that Jitender Kumar Kochar (Congress Candidate) was a necessary party and petitioner’s failure of his mandatory impleadment under Section 82(b) ROPA within the statutory period constituted an incurable defect, attracting the mandatory dismissal under Section 86(1). [Somnath Bharti v. Satish Upadhyay, EL.PET. 7/2025 & I.A. 8078/2025, I.A. 15470/2025, Decided on 17-01-2026] Read more HERE

FAMILY LAW

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, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 63, decided on 08-01-2026] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Granting maintenance would be grave injustice’; Woman’s claim denied after her brother shot her husband, leaving him incapacitated

In a revision application filed by a woman whose maintenance application was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J., dismissed the petition and denied maintenance to wife whose brother shot her husband. The Court held that the husband suffered a grievous firearm injury caused by the wife’s family, which rendered him incapable of earning his livelihood. Thus, the husband, was not liable to pay maintenance. [Vineeta v. Dr Ved Prakash Singh, Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025, decided on 19-01-2026] Read more HERE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERY RIGHTS

DELHI HIGH COURT | Aaj Tak logo protected from trade mark infringement

While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J, held that the defendant’s device mark used along with its word mark ‘CHARCHA AAJ KI’ was deceptively similar to the device mark used by ‘Aaj Tak’ news channel. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using the impugned device mark but allowed them to use the word mark ‘Charcha Aaj Ki’. [Living Media India Ltd. v. Charcha Aaj Ki, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 193, decided on 9-1-2026] Read more HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Appeal against Controller’s order dismissed, Flipkart’s patent found novel and inventive

In an appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”), a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., upheld the Controller of Patents’ order dismissing a post-grant opposition to Flipkart’s patent. The Court held that the Controller’s decision was well reasoned and free from infirmity, emphasising the detailed comparative analysis undertaken between the cited prior art and the characterised features of the invention. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the validity of Flipkart’s patent stood affirmed. [Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, CMA (PT) No. 9 of 2024, decided on 05-01-2026] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic; cannot be monopolized

While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 from using a trade mark deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ were generic in nature, were used widely for various goods and services in India and therefore were incapable of monopolization. Accordingly, the Court held that the marks were not deceptively similar and dismissed the application for interim injunction. [Mayank Jain v. Atulya Discs, CS (COMM) No. 412 of 2025, decided on 9-1-2026] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Large-scale job scam involving misuse of “AKASA AIR” trademark restrained; directives issued

In a suit instituted by SNV Aviation Private Limited (plaintiff), a well-known airline company operating under the brand AKASA AIR, for permanent injunction restraining the infringing defendants from infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, etc., a Single-Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., issued directions and restrained the infringing defendants from AKASA AIR trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. [SNV Aviation (P) Ltd. v. Alaska Aviation Academy (P) Ltd., CS(COMM) 1384/2025 with I.A. 32240——32244/2025, Decided on 22-12-2025] Read more HERE

LIMITAION ACT

ORISSA HIGH COURT | Application of Limitation Act computation method to contractual termination clauses barred

In a writ petition challenging the termination of a contract for alleged poor performance, the Division Bench of Harish Tandon* CJ., and M.S. Raman, J., observed that the thirty days’ notice requirement was duly satisfied and principles of natural justice were complied with and accordingly, upheld the termination order. The Court held that “The method of computation of the period for the purpose of limitation enshrined in Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be extended and/or applied in contractual field.” [Group No.5 Security Service v. State of Orissa, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 196, decided on 13-01-2026] Read more HERE

RAILWAYS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Railway employee travelling on Privilege Pass held bona fide passenger; Rs 3 lakh compensation granted despite missing journey entries

In an appeal under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (‘Railways Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that a deceased railway employee, who died after falling from a train while travelling on a privilege pass, was a bona fide passenger. The Court emphasised that merely because the deceased had not filled in journey particulars on the pass, it could not be held that he was travelling without a valid pass. The Court noted that while misuse of a pass may invite penalties under the Rules, no such misuse was established in this case. Consequently, the Court, while setting aside the Tribunal’s order, allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of Rs 3 lakhs with interest, subject to an upper limit of Rs 8 lakhs, to be distributed equally among the dependents. [Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India, First Appeal No. 315 of 2012, decided on 19-01-2026] Read more HERE

SERVICE LAW

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Suspension becomes invalid if not reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA) Rules; Subsequent review cannot revive it

In a case addressing whether an initial order of suspension which is mandatorily reviewable before the expiry of ninety days from the effective date as per Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules’), be revived by a subsequent review undertaken after the 90 day period lapses, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J., held that a suspension becomes invalid if it is not reviewed within the statutory period of 90 days as per Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA) Rules, and subsequent review or extension orders cannot revive it. The Court set aside the suspension and directed reinstatement with retrospective effect from the date immediately following the ninety-day expiry. [Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 518, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Mere reinstatement does not preclude conducting departmental enquiry over past misconduct; Health Officer’s plea challenging penalty order dismissed

In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the penalty order of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner, a Health Officer, pursuant to a departmental enquiry, a Single Judge Bench of Anand Sharma, J., held that petitioner’s mere reinstatement did not preclude the respondent from conducting any enquiry over past misconduct. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition at hand. [Hemlata Tetwal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 330, decided on 6-1-2026] Read more HERE

TAXATION LAW

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Assignment of leasehold rights not ‘Supply of Services’, Not taxable under GST

In a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’), the Division Bench of Anil L. Pansare* and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ., upheld the petitioner’s stand that assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot, together with the building constructed thereon, does not amount to supply of services. The Court held that such assignment constitutes transfer of immovable property and therefore lies outside the ambit of Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’). Consequently, the show cause notice demanding tax was quashed. [Aerocom Cushions (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 134, decided on 09-01-2026] Read more HERE