This week’s roundup of High Court Cases from January 2026 delves into various important legal developments, such as Advocate not client’s mere mouthpiece, Physics Wallah defamation, Sameer Wankhede’s defamation, terrorist activities financed through Cryptocurrency, Child’s Welfare over Father’s financial capacity, One-year bar under Section 14 HMA waived, TRACKON trademark infringement, Vicks Vaporub and VAPORIN, ‘Happi Planet’ trademark issue, Public Convenience over Hawking Rights, Tenants’ right to timely redevelopment over developer’s commercial interests, Penal acts are non-transferable to legal heirs, Inadequate Teachers in MP Govt Schools, humane approach in compassionate appointments, Denial of maternity leave for third pregnancy unsustainable.
ADVOCATE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Advocate is not client’s mere mouthpiece; should refrain from accepting frivolous briefs; Petition challenging DRT Registrar’s notice dismissed
While considering a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged jurisdiction of the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (‘DRT’), requiring him to appear before him, in an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Subhash Vidyarthi, J., held that the notice had not caused a failure of justice or grave injustice to the petitioner, which was absolutely necessary for maintaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. [Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. DRT Lucknow, 2026 SCC OnLine All 83, decided on 19-1-2026] Read more HERE
ARBITRATION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Common Arbitral Tribunal constituted for deciding for disputes arising from all inter-connected Essar-Narayan contracts
While deciding an issue whether the Court should constitute an Arbitral Tribunal for disputes arising from a Sale and Purchase Contract dated 24-6-2024, or whether all disputes arising from multiple inter-connected agreements between the parties should be referred together, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that, since both parties consented to a common reference, a three-member Arbitral Tribunal would be constituted to decide disputes arising not only from the 24-6-2024 contract but from all the inter-connected agreements listed by the respondent which were not part of the Section 11 petition. [Essar Power Gujarat Ltd. v. Narayan Resources (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 278, decided on 20-1-2026] Read more HERE
COMMERCIAL LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ex-employee posting videos defaming ‘Physics Wallah restrained’; Takedown of disparaging content ordered
While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for grant of an ex parte injunction restraining Defendant 1, and ex-employee of Physics Wallah, from posting videos calling Physics Wallah a scam, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J, held that the use of social media to disseminate disparaging content has the potential to cause immediate and irreparable harm to trademark’s reputation as also the goodwill of the effected party. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff. [PhysicsWallah Ltd. v. Nikhil Kumar Singh, CS (COMM) No. 70 of 2026, decided on 23-1-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Sameer Wankhede’s defamation suit against Netflix web series Ba***ds of Bollywood for want of jurisdiction rejected
In a suit instituted seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions, declarations, and damages on the ground of alleged defamation arising out of content contained in Aryan Khan’s Netflix series titled “The Ba***ds of Bollywood,” a Single-Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., held that the suit was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction. [Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainments (P) Ltd., CS (OS) 698/2025, I.A. No. 24508/2025, I.A. No. 24510/2025 & I.A. No. 28922/2025, Decided on 29-01-2026] Read more HERE
CRIMINAL LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Fair Trial Protects Interests of Accused, Victim and Society; Application to recall witness after six years from cross-examination in POCSO case rejected
While considering an application challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) whereby the application seeking recall of Opposite party 3 for further cross-examination was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Kumar Singh, J., held that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application at hand and stated that it was preferred either to delay the trial or to win-over the victim, who has already been examined and cross-examined at length. [Neelam v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 51, decided on 12-1-2026] Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Bail denied to man accused of terrorist activities financed through Cryptocurrency from online handler
In an appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008, the appellant-Accused 4 challenged the order passed by the Trial Court denying him bail since he was allegedly involved in the terrorist activities and receiving funds through Cryptocurrency from online handler utilized to carry out the terrorist activities, the Division Bench of H. P. Sandesh* and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ., held that that the Trial Court in detail discussed the material collected against the Accused 4 which substantiated the prima facie case against him, thus, no ground was made out to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, the Court denied the appeal at hand. [Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh @ Rishaan Thajuddin @ Rishan v. National Investigation Agency, Criminal Appeal No.1548 of 2025, decided on 22-1-2026] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rs. 1 Lakh fine of man languishing in jail despite release order recalled; advocates on strikes over working Saturdays called out
While considering an application filed by the accused-applicant, who was released by the High Court in October 2025, however he was languishing in jail as he could not deposit the fine amount due to poverty, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., considered that the applicant’s counsel did not appear in order to participate in the lawyers’ strike over working Saturdays, the Court stated that going on strike and remaining absent from Court work is not a solution. The right to protest must be balanced with the rights of other citizens, such as the right to life and personal liberty and in the case at hand, the personal life and liberty of the applicant was at stake. Thus, the Court held that poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons’ right of life and personal liberty, who has been released from jail, as Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and liberty. Accordingly, the Court recalled the imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and directed the Trial Court to release him. [Rajesh Kushwah v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.2204 of 2024, decided on 24-1-2026] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Bail granted to accused in POCSO case where victim allegedly eloped willingly
While considering a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) in offences under Sections 64(1) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Pramil Kumar Mathur, J., granted bail to the petitioner-accused without going into the merits of the case. [Sachin alias Bhoora v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1568 of 2025, decided on 12-1-2026] Read more HERE
FAMILY LAW
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Child’s Welfare over Father’s financial capacity; Custody denied to Father Living with Second Wife without Divorce
In an appeal filed by a father who was denied custody of his minor son because he was living with a second wife without a divorce from the mother, the Division Bench of Sanjay K. Agrawal* and Arvind Kumar Verma, JJ., rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order. The Court held that it could not be oblivious to the uncertainty that the child would receive better love, affection, and a good atmosphere from his step-mother, in comparison to what he had been receiving from his mother since birth. The Court stated that giving sole or more importance to the superior financial capacity of the father would not be proper and hence, denied custody to father living with second wife without divorce. [Laxmikant Joshi v. Lokeshwari, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 915, decided on 14-01-2026] Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | No bar for couple with one child to opt for IVF
In a petition challenging an order passed by the State Appellate Authority-Respondent 2 whereby petitioners, a couple, were denied access to Assisted Reproductive Technology (‘ART’), a Single Judge Bench of Suvir Sehgal, J., held that there is no bar in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘ART Act’) for a couple to opt for In Vitro Fertilization treatment (IVF), when they have one living child. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and set aside the said order. [Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 689, decided on 22-1-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Marriage in law, not in substance; One-year bar under Section 14 HMA waived for couple who never cohabited
In an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), challenging the Family Court’s order dated 09-12-2025 wherein it held that parties had failed to establish a case of “exceptional hardship” and that they had not made sufficient efforts to preserve the marriage, a Division Bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that considering the circumstances of present cases insistence on completion of one year would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to exceptional hardship justifying waiver of one-year bar under HMA. The Court set aside the Family Court’s order and granted leave to the parties to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) HMA. [Nupur Garg v. Dwarkesh Ahuja, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025, Decided on 20-01-2026] Read more HERE
INTELLETUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | TRACKON courier service trade mark protected from infringement
While hearing an Interim Application filed in a Commercial IP Suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor held the defendant’s impugned mark “TRACK-ON” to be virtually identical and deceptively similar to the registered mark “TRACKON” and likely to cause confusion. The Court accordingly restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark, observing that its adoption was dishonest and lacking in bona fides. [Trackon Couriers (P) Ltd. v. B. N. 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 344, decided on 22-01-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | “SettlementGuru” restrained from using Bajaj Finance trademark and inducing loan defaults through social media
In a commercial suit filed by Bajaj Finance Limited (plaintiff) against, a platform operating under the name “SettlementGuru” (defendant) for unlawfully interfering in its lawful business by inducing customers to default on their loan obligations on the assurance of securing settlements for amounts substantially lower than the outstanding dues., a Single-Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and issued directions to protect the Bajaj Finance trademark, commercial interests and public standing. [Bajaj Finance Ltd. v. Manish Singh, CS (COMM) 63/2026 with I.A. Nos. 1851—1855/2026, Decided on 22-01-2026] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Vapo’ is descriptive and publici juris; Vicks Vaporub’s claim of deceptive similarity with VAPORIN rejected
In petitions filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’), seeking rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by removal of the respondent’s marks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB”, a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., held that the rival marks were not deceptively similar to “VICKS VAPORUB”. The Court observed that “VAPO” is merely descriptive, common to trade, and therefore publici juris. Consequently, the petitions for rectification were dismissed. [Procter and Gamble Company v. IPI India (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 750, decided on 06-01-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Counterfeiters restrained from infringing ‘Happi Planet’ trademark; directs Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho to take down fake listings
An application was filed by Happi Planet Eco Products Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking exemption from instituting Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”), along with seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction against rampant trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and misuse of the plaintiff’s trade dress on e-commerce platforms. Tushar Rao Gedela, J., restrained defendants 1 to 7 from using in any manner plaintiff’s well-known brand trademarks “Happi Planet” and the distinctive packaging/proprietary trade dress, including inter alia HAPPY PLANET, HIPIPA PLANET et al, and/or plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work, packaging and trade dress. [Happi Planet Eco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Malani, CS(COMM) 79/2026, decided on 28-01-2026] Read more HERE
MUNICIPAL LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Public Convenience over Hawking Rights: Provisional COVs do not allow permanent vending or encroachments
In a writ petition instituted by the Mahila Hawker Welfare Association seeking directions to permit its members to vend peacefully near the Anand Vihar Bus Stand, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Madhu Jain, JJ., disposed of the petition and held that public convenience, traffic flow and urban planning considerations justify removal of encroachments, with only regulated mobile vending permitted for surveyed and recognized vendors. The Court further held that street vendors holding provisional Certificates of Vending do not acquire a right to erect permanent structures or to obstruct public roads and footpaths. [Mahila Hawker Welfare Assn. v. District Magistrate, Shahdra, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 299, Decided on 22-01-2026] Read more HERE
PROPERTY LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Lease Assignee shielded by Indoor Management Doctrine in cooperative housing disputes; Interim relief rejected as no suspicious circumstances made out
In an interim application deciding whether in cooperative housing disputes, the doctrine of indoor management could shield an assignee and the original lessee’s heirs when society documents were executed by the then Secretary amid allegations of a forged resolution, absence of prior General Body approval, and suspicious circumstances, a Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., dismissed the application and held that the defendants were entitled to rely on the Secretary’s authority and on the Society’s 1979 Bye-Laws, and that no suspicious circumstances were established to displace indoor management. [Usha Sunder Premises CHS Ltd. v. Nilang Desai, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 160, decided on 14-1-2026] Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Tenants’ right to timely redevelopment prevails over developer’s commercial interests
In a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that termination of the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney executed with the developer was justified. The Court noted that the project had remained stagnant for over 11 years, observed that the society and its members could not be made to wait endlessly, and emphasised that the rights of tenants to secure redevelopment must prevail over the developer’s commercial interests. Interim relief was therefore refused. [ISON Builders LLP v. Om Sai Ram Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed), Commercial Arbitration Petition (L.) No. 36533 of 2025, decided on 23-01-2026] Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Penal acts are non-transferable to legal heirs; Employee’s suspension based solely on FIR against his father quashed
In a case revolving around whether a government employee’s suspension, ordered six years after an unrelated FIR against his father, could stand, a Single Judge Bench of Rahul Bharti, J., observed that penal acts are non-transferable to legal heirs and held that the impugned suspension order was utterly misconceived and vitiated with malice in law and accordingly quashed it while directing that the employee to be restored to his service at the post. [Ishant Sharma v. State (UT of J&K), 2026 SC OnLine J&K 31, decided on 16-1-2026] Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Inadequate Teachers in MP Govt Schools; data on vacancies sought
In a writ petition filed regarding the inadequate of teachers in MP Govt. schools, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., directed the respondent authorities to file affidavits indicating the number of Government Schools in the State and the positions that had vacancies in the said Schools. [Lok Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 351, decided on 20-01-2026] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | No Policy, No Redaction; Disabled professor’s petition to remove disability data from online records dismissed
While hearing a writ petition filed by a person with 79 per cent disability seeking redaction and de-indexing of sensitive disability information from search engines, on the grounds that such publicity of information has been causing immense mental anguish, social stigma, and professional harm and is in violation of his fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J, held that since there was no binding policy allowing redaction of the petitioner’s information on record, the Court cannot create any additional right under Article 226 to the effect. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition. [ABC v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 143;, decided on 12-1-2026] Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Denial of Head Constable post to dependent spouse of disabled combatant unjustified; humane approach mandated in compassionate appointments
While adjudicating an intra-court appeal arising out of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., observed that the denial of compassionate appointment to the dependent spouse of a medically invalidated member of a combatant force was contrary to the object and intent of the governing scheme. The Court emphasised that disability suffered in combat duty may, in many cases, be equivalent to death in harness and that such cases warrant a liberal interpretation of compassionate appointment schemes. Finding no infirmity in the order of the Single Judge, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal. [Union of India v. Ajit Kumar Khuntia, W.A No. 1220 of 2025, decided on 15-01-2026] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Denial of maternity leave for third pregnancy unsustainable; State directed to extend benefits
While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Division Bench comprising R. Suresh Kumar* and Shamim Ahmed, JJ., held that rejection of maternity leave for a third confinement was contrary to the settled legal position. The Court emphasised that the issue had already been covered by earlier Division Bench decisions following the dictum of the Supreme Court in K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 263, and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside. [P. Mangaiyarkkarasi v. Registrar, W.P. No. 705 of 2026, decided on 21-01-2026] Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | No deficiency of service where service rendered free of charge; Sets aside consumer fora orders
A revision application was filed by The Branch Manager, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank along with connected revisional applications by the farmers and the Jute Corporation of India (JCI), seeking to challenge the orders of the District Consumer Commission, State Commission, and National Commission, which had held the bank and JCI liable for deficiency in service and granted compensation to the farmers. Debangsu Basak, J., held that the bank in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be foisted with the liability for alleged deficiency of service on the ground that it failed to sell the pledged goods as the bank did not initiate any recovery proceedings. [Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Dulal Ch. Chandra, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 10727, decided on 26-11-2025] Read more HERE
