{"id":339369,"date":"2025-01-19T12:00:20","date_gmt":"2025-01-19T06:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=339369"},"modified":"2025-01-19T14:40:08","modified_gmt":"2025-01-19T09:10:08","slug":"high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/","title":{"rendered":"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

ARBITRATION<\/p>\n

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interim attachment of Iron Ore upheld in arbitration dispute based on prima facie case and balance of convenience<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed by Tuff Metallurgical Private Limited (appellants) under Section 37<\/a> of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> challenging the order dated 12-09-2024 passed by the Single Judge which directed the attachment of 50,000 WMT of iron ore as a precautionary measure to protect the interests of the Respondent in an ongoing arbitration. A division bench of Ninala Jayasurya and Nyapathy Vijay, JJ., upheld the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing the adequacy of the prima facie case and the sufficiency of the procedure followed. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Question regarding substance of existence of agreement can only be determined by Arbitral Tribunal<\/span><\/p>\n

Read<\/span> In a petition filed under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) seeking reference of the disputes that had arisen between the parties regarding an agreement dated 19-02-2007 (‘the agreement’) and a deed dated 14-08-2015 which cancelled the agreement (‘cancellation deed’) to an Arbitration Tribunal, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., allowed the petition holding that the agreements existed despite not being executed by a validly authorised person. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Pendency of civil and criminal litigation among partners cannot estop a partner from invoking arbitration clause<\/p>\n

In an application filed under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, the Single Judge Bench of Suvir Sehgal, J., allowed the petition while holding that the pendency of civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, could not estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitration. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Right to speedy trial is not a ‘free-pass’ for every undertrial to be released on bail’; Bail petition of Neeraj Bawania in double murder case<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the accused under Section 439<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> seeking regular bail registered under Sections 302<\/a>\/120-B<\/a>\/34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, a Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., stated that in the present case, the accused had suffered judicial custody of over nine years as an undertrial, and it was not clear as to how long the trial would take to conclude. The accused was stated to be the head of the dreaded ‘Neeraj Bawania Gang’, and therefore, regardless of how long he might have been in jail in the present case, this court was not persuaded to accept that if enlarged on bail, the accused would not indulge in criminality again and would not be a threat to the society at large. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Bail in NDPS case on ground of undue delay in trial, unfettered by rigours of S. 37’; Bail granted to accused of selling narcotics pills<\/p>\n

In a bail application under Section 483<\/a> of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, for offences under Sections 22<\/a>, 61<\/a>, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<\/a> (‘NDPS Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goyal, J., allowed the application holding that long inordinate custody of the accused as an undertrial, without him being responsible for procrastination of the trial, entitled him to the grant of regular bail in the facts of the present case. The Court also elaborated upon the right to speedy trial and held that the grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, could not be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Boby Chemmanur granted bail in sexual harassment case, cited bail is rule & jail is exception; warned against body shaming<\/p>\n

In a bail application filed by businessman Boby Chemmanur (‘Boby’) in a sexual harassment case filed against him under Sections 75(1)(i)<\/a> and 75(1)(iv)<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (‘IT Act’), the Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., granted him bail upon furnishing of a bond worth Rs 50,000. While granting bail, the Court reiterated that for offences which were punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years or which extended to seven years with or without fine, the accused could not be arrested by the Police Officer without sufficient reasons. The Court also reiterated the principle that bail was the rule and the jail was the exception. Further, the Court observed that body shaming was not acceptable in our society, and everybody should be vigilant while making comments about others, whether they were men or women. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

COMPENSATION<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Compensation of Rs 4 lakhs granted to father and mother of a man who died by accidentally falling from a local train<\/p>\n

The present appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgement dated 24-07-2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of appellants. A Single Judge Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J., opined that an “untoward incident” as defined by Section 123(c)(2)<\/a> of the Railways Act, 1989<\/a> (‘Railways Act’) was established as it had been established that there was an accidental falling down of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. The Court thus directed respondent to pay compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to each of appellants-father and mother of the deceased who died due to accidentally falling down from a train at Sandhurst Road. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CONSUMER PROTECTION<\/p>\n

TELANGANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Social media complaints cannot be seen as lacking in gravity’; Relief denied to caterer whose license was terminated after customer complaints<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed against the termination of the license of the petitioner’s Catering Stall at the Secunderabad Railway Station vide the impugned letter sent by the South-Central Railway (‘Railway Authorities’), the Single Judge Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya, J., dismissed the petition, holding that there was an undisputed deficiency of service by the petitioner, which was not rectified despite several opportunities, and the Railway Authorities had followed the terms of the Special Conditions of Contract (‘SCC’) of the Bid Document in the procedure of termination. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Contempt case initiated against former constable and his advocate questioning partiality of two Judges in Full Bench<\/p>\n

The Full Bench of the Court comprising of Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Chief Justice, Savitri Ratho and S.S. Mishra, JJ. while taking suo motu cognizance of the preliminary objections raised against the constitution of Full Bench initiated a contempt case against the present petitioner\/ deponent of the affidavit and the advocate who filed the affidavit. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CRUELTY<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Wife filing false case under S.498-A IPC to correct husband’s behaviour amounts to cruelty<\/p>\n

The present appeal was filed by appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 05-03-2018 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Thane whereby the decree of divorce filed by respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty was allowed. The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., opined that the action of resorting to false prosecution, on the wife’s part, was a sufficient ground to entitle the husband for a divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a)<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (‘the 1955 Act’). The Court rejected the appeal as it did not find any perversity in the observations by the Judge of the Family Court in passing the impugned judgment and order. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CUSTOMS<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Baggage Rules required to be re-looked to ensure no harassment of genuine tourists\/travellers carrying gold jewellery<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Article 226<\/a>\/227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, challenging the orders dated 06-02-2024 and 23-09-2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), respectively, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Dharmesh Sharma, JJ., stated that the Baggage Rules, 2016, (‘Baggage Rules’) were required to be re-looked by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) and a policy decision was required to be taken by the Government of India to ensure that there was no harassment of genuine tourists and travellers, and also to ensure that illegal smuggling of gold was properly curbed. The values of gold that would be permissible under the Baggage Rules would also have to be re-looked by the CBIC, as the same appeared to be completely not in tune with the current market value of gold. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DEFAMATION<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Rupali Ganguli’s daughter Esha Verma restrained from publishing defamatory posts against her<\/p>\n

In the present case, plaintiff-Rupali Ganguly Verma, an actress, had filed a suit alleging defamation at the hands of Defendant 1-Esha Verma, plaintiff’s husband’s daughter from first marriage. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., restrained Defendant 1 from publishing, posting, sharing, circulating, or otherwise disseminating any defamatory, false, slanderous, or libelous statements, posts, videos, tweets, stories, or content against plaintiff. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Living together in a shared household through a relationship in ‘nature of marriage’ is also domestic relationship under DV Act<\/p>\n

In a petition challenging the judgment dated 19-07-2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., stated that even though the man had relied upon certain agreement to show that the parties had entered into an alleged friendship agreement and had disputed the marriage, however, the same could not be accepted as a gospel truth at the initial stages. The Court stated that even otherwise, as per Section 2(f)<\/a> of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (‘DV Act’), the relationship of parties living together through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also fall within the definition of domestic relationship. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the complaint filed by the woman. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INCOME TAX<\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Twin Conditions under S. 127 of Income Tax Act was not complied with’; Relief granted to assessee whose tax assessment was wrongly transferred<\/p>\n

In an income tax appeal and a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner\/ assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(‘CIT’) whereby the petitioner’s appeal was rejected and the best judgment assessment framed by the respondent 5, i.e., Income Tax Officer, Himachal Pradesh (‘ITO Himachal’), the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan* and Rakesh Kainthla, JJ., allowed the income tax appeal as well as the writ petition holding that the respondents did not comply with the procedure laid down in Section 127<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a> (‘the Act’) in transferring the petitioner’s case from Delhi to Himachal Pradesh. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Injunction granted in favour of FMI Limited in ‘INDI’ vs ‘INDEED’ Trademark Dispute, upheld<\/p>\n

An application was filed by FMI Limited (plaintiff) under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> of Civil Procedure Code<\/a> (‘CPC’) and other interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 28-08-2024 and under Section 151 of CPC seeking leave to sell the existing stocks of the products bearing the mark ‘INDEED’ that was lying with the defendant. Amit Bansal, J., held that a prima facie case of passing off is made out on behalf of the plaintiff and the competing marks are phonetically, visually and structurally similar and are used by the parties in relation to identical goods having an identical and overlapping trade channels, which is likely to cause confusion and deception among the consumers who are ordinary persons of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘MAHINDRA’ is not a trivial or inconsequential addition; Injunction in E-ZEO trademark dispute as Mahindra rebrands to ‘Mahindra Zeo’, rejected<\/p>\n

An application in a trademark suit was filed by Gensol Electric Vehicles seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing and passing off the trademark of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs. Amit Bansal, J., dismissed the application and held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction after defendant’s inclusion of ‘MAHINDRA’ to the mark ‘ZEO’ making it distinctive both structurally and phonetically. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MAINTAINANCE<\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Chastity of woman is priceless possession, if husband doubts wife’s character without proof, she has enough reason to live separately’; Maintenance order upheld<\/p>\n

In a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s decision directing the revisionist-husband to pay Rs. 3000\/- per month as maintenance to the wife, the Single-Judge Bench of G. Satapathy*, J. dismissed the petition and upheld the Family Court’s decision. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PREMATURE RELEASE<\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Judicial Department is unable to locate the file and the individual is languishing in the correctional home; Calcutta High Court directs premature release<\/p>\n

An application has been filed in a contempt petition seeking compliance with the recommendations of the State Sentence Review Board after the Judicial Department is unable to locate the file relating to a direction of premature release of the applicant. Shampa Sarkar, J., directs correctional home authority to release applicant 1 based on the recommendation made by the State Sentence Review Board. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUBLIC HEALTH<\/p>\n

TRIPURA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Updated statistics of HIV\/AIDS patients in State sought for evaluation of the impact of recent measures<\/p>\n

In a writ petition initiated based on a letter dated 10-07-2024, by the Executive Chairman, Tripura State Legal Services Authority (TSLSA) seeking judicial intervention to address the alarming rise in HIV cases in Tripura, especially among the youth, a Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. and Biswajit Palit, J., directed the respondents to file updated statistics on the incidence of HIV\/AIDS, including youth-specific data, to assess the effectiveness of recent measures. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS\/ FIR<\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Proceedings quashed against law students for ragging 1st yr student, considering mutual settlement, directed to volunteer at orphanage<\/p>\n

In a criminal petition to quash the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 294<\/a>\/341<\/a>\/323<\/a>\/324<\/a>\/506<\/a>\/ 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) against students at SOA National Institute of Law, the Single Judge Bench of Sibo Sankar Misra, J. allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the law students. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; petition to quash complaint dismissed<\/p>\n

In a petition filed for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) alleging that the petitioners and other accused persons had committed offences under Sections 323<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 341<\/a>, 452<\/a>, 506<\/a> and 34<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.*, stated that to interpret Section 468(3) of the CrPC, in a manner which considers the relevant offences to be the ones in respect of which summons were issued would lead to absurdity. As on the one hand, the complainant would be expected to be diligent and adhere to the limitation period while filing the complaint, but if the Court subsequently was to drop one of the more serious offences as a consequence of which the limitation period would get reduced, the complaint which was within the limitation period as per the offences alleged in the complaint would now suddenly be rendered time-barred. The Court observed that in the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent under Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, 506 and 34 of IPC. The offence which had the most severe punishment was the one under Section 452 of IPC, which provides for imprisonment up to seven years. The Court stated that, since no limitation period was provided for offences punishable with more than three years of imprisonment, therefore, the impugned complaint could not be stated to be barred by limitation. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Student’s right to travel abroad by issuance of passport cannot be scuttled merely because father did not grant consent’; Passport Officer directed to consider application by mother<\/p>\n

The present petition was filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> by petitioner-minor through her mother-the natural guardian, against Respondent 2-the Regional Passport Officer, who issued the impugned communication dated 18-11-2024 informing petitioner that her passport application dated 28-10-2024 was not processed as her father had objected to re-issue her passport. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RESERVATION FOR SCS\/STS\/OBCS\/MINORITIES<\/p>\n

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Pleas on Reservation of Women in Bengaluru Advocates Association Elections<\/p>\n

While considering the instant petition concerning providing reservation for women advocates in Bengaluru Advocates Association Elections and in membership of the Governing Council and the Executive Committee of the Association; the Bench of R. Devdas, J*., dismissed the petitions stating that directions issued by the Supreme Court to provide reservation for women members of the Bar, were made under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and such power cannot be exercised by the High Court. The Court further pointed out that the Supreme Court has already commenced the process of calling for relevant information and data from all the High Court Bar Associations of the country in order to issue suitable directions enabling reservation of certain posts to the women members of the various Bar Association in the country. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | “There is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members”; Order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, set aside<\/p>\n

In a revision petition filed under Section 115<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’) to set aside the Order dated 27-09-2021 by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC had been dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J. held that the plaint of the respondent (husband) (plaintiff) did not disclose any cause of action and set aside the impugned order. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Again, found negligent of the same offence’; Punishment of an employee for being repeatedly ‘lethargic and irresponsible on duty, upheld<\/p>\n

In a petition challenging the order dated 21-11-2014, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the alleged charges and was punished by reducing his salary by three stages for three years with cumulative effect, the Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., observed that the Appellate Authority had considered the previous conduct of the petitioner, wherein he was punished by reduction for two stages for two years “without cumulative effect” in a similar case, where he failed to prevent the theft of overhead electric wires while being on duty. In spite of the punishment and only around three months thereafter, in the present case, he was again found negligent of the same offence. The Court observed that after considering this, the Appellate Authority opined that in spite of the imposition of the punishment in the earlier instance, the petitioner had not changed or mended his ways and had remained lethargic and irresponsible on duty. Thus, considering the given facts, the Court stated that it did not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner to be disproportionate as warranting any interference of this Court and accordingly, disposed of the present petition. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT<\/span> | Lack of transparency in Medical Board’s justification for differential treatment violates Articles 14 and 16<\/p>\n

In a civil writ petition challenging the petitioner’s candidature rejection in the medical fitness evaluation process thereby violating Articles 14<\/a> and 16<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., held petitioner’s rejection as discriminatory and directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within 30 days, subject to his eligibility and merit. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Indian Overseas Bank rebuked for apathetic denial of employee’s request to forego her promotion to care for her disabled son<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed against the refusal by Indian Overseas Bank (‘the Bank’) to let the petitioner forego her promotion and transfer in order to take care of her disabled son, the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Ashwin D. Bhobhe, JJ., quashed the petitioner’s promotion order and the Bank’s refusal of the petitioner’s request. The Court rebuked the Bank for change in its stance before the Court and apathetic approach towards the petitioner, who was making a sacrifice to take care of her disabled son and directed it to pay Rs 25,000 to the National Association for the Blind within four weeks. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TERRORISM<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Not a case of passive support to terrorist organisation’; Bail denied to alleged ISIS associate in UAPA case<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal field by the appellant (‘accused’) under Section 21(4)<\/a> of the National Investigation Act, 2008<\/a> read with Section 482<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned order dated 23-08-2023, whereby the bail applications were dismissed, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma*, JJ., stated that the accused was an educated person and was well-aware of the nature of activities of ISIS. Moreover, it was not a case of passive support to a terrorist organisation, but rather the chats, showed that the accused was advocating Jihad to establish Khilafat. By doing so, the accused was also trying to recruit the individuals on these online groups for such acts. Thus, the Court opined that the mandate of Section 43(D)(5)<\/a> of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967<\/a> (‘UAPA’) was clearly applicable, and under these circumstances, the impugned order did not warrant any interference. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Support to terrorist organization monetarily or in the form of networking prohibited; Bail appeal of LeT accused rejected<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed challenging the impugned order dated 02-08-2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge wherein it rejected the appellant’s application seeking bail. A division bench of Prathiba M Singh, and Amit Sharma, JJ., held that there is no need for any interference with the bail appeal as the evidence prima facie establishes the culpability of the appellant. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | “Religious terrorism is tragic & dangerous phenomenon”; Bail denied due to strong prima facie evidence & National Security threat<\/p>\n

In an bail application filed by appellant, leader of group “Fisabillilah”, who is accused of promoting Jihad, supporting banned terrorist organizations (ISIS), and planning acts of violence including a conspiracy to attack the Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur, a Division bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., upheld the trial court’s decision and affirmed the need for a careful balance between individual fundamental rights and the broader interests of national security in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967<\/a> (UAPA). Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TRUSTS<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | No fetter on Charity Commissioner’s power to entertain application for suspension, removal, or dismissal of trustee, whose Change Report is pending before Deputy Charity Commissioner<\/p>\n

The issue for consideration in the present petition was whether it was permissible for the Charity Commissioner to try and entertain application for removal of trustees under the provisions of Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (‘the MPT Act’) when appointment of the trustees was yet to be accepted in an enquiry under Section 22, that is, whether application for removal of trustees under Section 41-D of the MPT Act could be decided during pendency of Change Reports relating to their very appointments. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., opined that it could not be accepted that if any Council Member misconducts, the Charity Commissioner was precluded from initiating action against him\/her under Section 41-D of the MPT Act under specious plea that the report in respect of the change relating to his\/her election as trustee was pending adjudication before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The Court therefore held that petitioner and Respondents 3 to 25 could not contend that application for their suspension, removal, or dismissal under the provisions of Section 41-D of the MPT Act could not be decided by the Charity Commissioner until the Deputy Charity Commissioner decides all the Change Reports. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":339375,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46069,45673],"tags":[3226,77637,2664,70389,68448,77558,11241,11821,27414,11941,2570,3171,2891,77487,77699,2592,45005,2943,13961,5881,30500,77701,52048,77542,77698,7841,77607,32120,6721,77700,47381,77640,5941,3475,42599,30397],"class_list":["post-339369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-high-court-round-up","category-columns-for-roundup","tag-arbitration","tag-baggage-rules","tag-Bail","tag-bns","tag-bnss","tag-boby-chemmanur","tag-consumer-protection","tag-contempt-of-court","tag-cpc","tag-crpc","tag-Cruelty","tag-Domestic_Violence","tag-Environment","tag-fmi-limited","tag-hiv-aids","tag-Income_Tax","tag-indian-overseas-bank","tag-injunction","tag-ipc","tag-ipr","tag-isis","tag-let","tag-mahindra","tag-mahindra-zeo","tag-maintainance","tag-ndps","tag-neeraj-bawania","tag-premature-release","tag-quashment-of-proceedings","tag-reservation-of-women-in-bengaluru-advocates-association-elections","tag-right-to-travel-abroad","tag-rupali-ganguli","tag-service-law","tag-Terrorism","tag-trade-marks","tag-uapa"],"yoast_head":"\nHigh Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Stories on Neeraj Bawania; Rupali Ganguli; Mahindra Trademark, etc | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Read stories on Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; etc\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Read stories on Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; etc\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-19T06:30:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-19T09:10:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-19T06:30:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-19T09:10:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4057,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/ROUND-01.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Arbitration\",\"Baggage Rules\",\"Bail\",\"BNS\",\"BNSS\",\"Boby Chemmanur\",\"consumer protection\",\"contempt of court\",\"CPC\",\"crpc\",\"Cruelty\",\"Domestic Violence\",\"Environment\",\"FMI Limited\",\"HIV\\\/AIDS\",\"Income Tax\",\"Indian Overseas Bank\",\"injunction\",\"IPC\",\"IPR\",\"ISIS\",\"LeT\",\"Mahindra\",\"Mahindra Zeo\",\"Maintainance\",\"NDPS\",\"Neeraj Bawania\",\"Premature Release\",\"quashment of proceedings\",\"Reservation of Women in Bengaluru Advocates Association Elections\",\"Right to Travel Abroad\",\"Rupali Ganguli\",\"Service Law\",\"Terrorism\",\"Trade Marks\",\"UAPA\"],\"articleSection\":[\"High Court Round Up\",\"Legal RoundUp\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/\",\"name\":\"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Stories on Neeraj Bawania; Rupali Ganguli; Mahindra Trademark, etc | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/ROUND-01.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-19T06:30:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-19T09:10:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Read stories on Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; etc\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/ROUND-01.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/ROUND-01.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"High Court Weekly Roundup\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/01\\\/19\\\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Stories on Neeraj Bawania; Rupali Ganguli; Mahindra Trademark, etc | SCC Times","description":"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Read stories on Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; etc","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more","og_description":"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Read stories on Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; etc","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-19T06:30:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-19T09:10:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more","datePublished":"2025-01-19T06:30:20+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-19T09:10:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/"},"wordCount":4057,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.webp","keywords":["Arbitration","Baggage Rules","Bail","BNS","BNSS","Boby Chemmanur","consumer protection","contempt of court","CPC","crpc","Cruelty","Domestic Violence","Environment","FMI Limited","HIV\/AIDS","Income Tax","Indian Overseas Bank","injunction","IPC","IPR","ISIS","LeT","Mahindra","Mahindra Zeo","Maintainance","NDPS","Neeraj Bawania","Premature Release","quashment of proceedings","Reservation of Women in Bengaluru Advocates Association Elections","Right to Travel Abroad","Rupali Ganguli","Service Law","Terrorism","Trade Marks","UAPA"],"articleSection":["High Court Round Up","Legal RoundUp"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/","name":"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Stories on Neeraj Bawania; Rupali Ganguli; Mahindra Trademark, etc | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.webp","datePublished":"2025-01-19T06:30:20+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-19T09:10:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"High Court Weekly Roundup for January 2025: Read stories on Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; etc","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"High Court Weekly Roundup"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/19\/high-court-weekly-roundup-january-2025-on-neeraj-bawania-rupali-ganguli-mahindra\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania\u2019s Bail; Rupali Ganguli\u2019s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/ROUND-01.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=339369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339369\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/339375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=339369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=339369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=339369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}