{"id":385085,"date":"2026-05-25T15:30:21","date_gmt":"2026-05-25T10:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=385085"},"modified":"2026-05-25T16:20:42","modified_gmt":"2026-05-25T10:50:42","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-18-24-may-stray-dogs-non-veg-food-in-ganga-katy-perry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/25\/top-legal-developments-this-week-18-24-may-stray-dogs-non-veg-food-in-ganga-katy-perry\/","title":{"rendered":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [18-24 May, 2026] | Stray Dogs; Non-Veg Food in Ganga; Katy Perry Trade Mark; and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (18—24 May 2026), including Stray Dogs Suo Motu Case, bail in UAPA Bail Cases, Free EWS Treatment in Private Delhi Hospitals, Judicial Silence in the Age of social media, 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy, and more.<\/p>\n

STORIES OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

STRAY DOGS<\/span> | Nationwide sterilization, Full Implementation of ABC Rules, 2023: Broad directions issued in Stray Dogs Suo Motu Case<\/p>\n

In City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In Re<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court took strict note of government authorities’ failure to evenly implement the framework under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules). Strongly affirming the framework enshrined in the ABC Rules, the Court upheld the Animal Welfare Board of India’s Standard Operating Procedure (AWBI SOP). The Court also dismissed applications seeking modification of its previous order dated 7 November 2025. The Court further directed the States to build a nationwide sterilisation infrastructure and issued detailed directions.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Applicability of ABC Rules, Tortious Liability, Euthanasia: Key Takeaways from Supreme Court’s Stray Dogs Case Ruling<\/a><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | “Showed genuine remorse for their actions”: Bail granted to men accused of throwing non-veg food in River Ganga<\/p>\n

In a set of bail applications, tiled Mohd Azad Ali v. State of U.P.4<\/sup>, filed by persons accused of throwing non-veg food in River Ganga after an Iftar party, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applications, holding that the investigation about the Iftar party, the video and the alleged larger conspiracy of creating religious disharmony being part of a larger conspiracy, would not be thwarted and can continue without further detention of the accused persons.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

PRISON AND PRISONERS<\/span> | Gravity of Offence Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Remission: MHA’s Cryptic Rejection of Premature Release, quashed<\/p>\n

In Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 865<\/a>, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned communication as a non-speaking and cryptic order reflecting complete non-application of mind. The Court held that any decision affecting the liberty of a person must disclose reasons and demonstrate due application of mind, as recording of reasons is an indispensable safeguard against arbitrariness and ensures transparency, fairness and accountability in executive decision-making.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases<\/p>\n

In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 881<\/a>, the Supreme Court expressed serious reservations on several aspects of the judgment rendered by a co-equal Bench in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10. The Court further clarified that three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 is binding law entitled to the protection of stare decisis. It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts or even by Benches of lower strength of Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> ‘Marriage Does Not Eclipse Her Individuality’: SC Expunges Cruelty and Desertion Findings Against Dentist Wife<\/a><\/p>\n

PARTITION<\/span> | Got a Decree in 2012, Still No Possession? A ‘Comedy of Errors’ and Restores 14-Year-Old Execution in Partition Suit<\/p>\n

In Jennifer Messias v. Leonard G Lobo<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 882<\/a>, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had effectively stalled the execution of a decree passed as far back as 13 April 2012. Describing the litigation as a “Comedy of Errors”, the Court held that the controversy regarding whether the decree was preliminary or final had to be determined from the substance and terms of the decree itself, and not merely from its nomenclature. The Court observed that the decree had already determined the parties’ shares, entitlement to possession, mesne profits, and the mode of effecting partition in the event division by metes and bounds was impossible, thereby rendering the insistence on a separate final decree “completely unwanted”.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

MRTP ACT<\/span> | Additional Amenity TDR Cannot Be Defeated by Contractual Conditions or Delay Once Statutory Right to Compensation Crystallises<\/p>\n

In Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn. v. Vijay Nagar Apartments2<\/sup><\/a>, while examining the controversy revolving around whether such a statutory right could be defeated by clauses contained in the Letter of Intent (LOI), undertaking and maintenance agreement executed between the parties, and whether the claim was barred on account of delay and laches, the Supreme Court affirmed the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and upheld the entitlement of the landowners to additional Amenity TDR against development of the garden on the surrendered land.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Supreme Court sets aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order for hallucination of facts without application of mind<\/a><\/p>\n

HEALTH AND MEDICAL LAE<\/span> | Policymakers, Hospitals and Land Agencies Called to Build an SOP for Implementation of Free EWS Treatment in Private Delhi Hospitals<\/p>\n

In an application, tiled Union of India v. Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust<\/span><\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, arising out of judgment on free treatment to economically weaker sections in private hospitals of Delhi, the Supreme Court directed a joint meeting for framing of guidelines-cum-SOP for implementation of directions pertaining to free treatment of economically weaker sections of society in private hospitals of Delhi, as directed in Union of India v. Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust, (2018) 8 SCC 321.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Can Private Loan Transactions Constitute “Deposits” under Section 2(c), MPID Act? Supreme Court Explained<\/a><\/p>\n

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

WATER, RIVERS, CANALS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS<\/span> | A Parking Dispute at Yamuna Sur Ghat Brought A Ban on All Commercial and Religious Activities on Flood Plains<\/p>\n

In a writ petition titled Suresh Kumar v. DDA, W.P.(C) 5894\/2026, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with directions that no commercial or parking activity shall be permitted on the Yamuna Flood Plains area in question; DDA should protect the ecologically sensitive land from any such use; and alternative parking arrangements, if required, may be made away from the flood plains.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ARTICLE 21<\/span> | Can be Evicted but Cannot be Left Without Schools, Buses and Water: Balancing Jhuggi Relocation and Article 21<\/p>\n

In the bunch of petitions titled Khushnuma Khan v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3265<\/a>, arising from the proposed eviction and rehabilitation of residents of “Juggis and JJ Bastis”, the Delhi High Court upheld the Relocation of “Jhuggis and JJ Bastis” Residents to EWS Flats at Savda Ghevra, holding that mere eviction and rehabilitation at alternative accommodation would not violate the petitioners’ fundamental right to shelter and livelihood under Article 21 as long as the their interests were secured as per the mandate of DUSIB Policy and Protocol.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Fake or Invalid Licence Alone Cannot Save the Insurer: Karnataka High Court modified the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal<\/a><\/p>\n

RTI ACT<\/span> | Penalty under RTI Act Unsustainable Without Finding of Mala Fide: State Information Commission’s ₹25,000 Order Quashed<\/p>\n

In T.A. Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 8128<\/a>, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) on 9 May 2022 was unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised that penalty under the RTI Act is unsustainable without a clear finding of mala fide denial of information or unreasonable delay without sufficient cause, and stressed that such provisions, being quasi-criminal in nature, cannot be invoked mechanically.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/span> | Judges Do Not Hold Press Conferences and Have Very Limited Means to Protect Themselves: Judicial Silence in the Age of Social Media<\/p>\n

In CBI v. Kuldeep Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3408<\/a>, the Delhi High Court initiated the contempt proceeding against the respondents, holding that statements and conduct of the respondents, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Devesh Vishwakarma, Saurabh Bharadwaj and others, prima facie amounted to scandalising the Court, lowering its authority, and obstructing administration of justice and fell within the ambit of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)<\/a>, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971<\/a> (the Act).<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Rajasthan High Court directs seizure of driver’s phone; issues contempt notice over unauthorised recording of court proceedings<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Who is a ‘Secured Creditor’ Under IBC? Not the VAT Authority; Attachment of Property Quashed<\/p>\n

In Avenue Realty v. Commr.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 3739<\/a>, the Madras High Court set aside the impugned order affirming the order of attachment made by the authority under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), for VAT dues by the corporate debtor, holding that the authorities under the TNVAT Act are not secured creditors and VAT dues cannot be recovered as if they were dues payable to a secured creditor. Once the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has ordered liquidation under Section 33<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) and a statutory liquidator has been appointed, the assets of the corporate debtor are dealt with as per Section 53 IBC, i.e. “waterfall mechanism”.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

SERVICE LAW<\/span> | Can a Railway Employee Claim HRA After Building His Own House and Vacating the Railway Quarter?<\/p>\n

In Kandarpa Kanta Sarma v. Union of India<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>, the Gauhati High Court held that railway employees are not entitled to HRA where vacant government quarters in the entitled category are available, but failed to apply for allotment as required under the applicable letters\/circulars; an illegal grant of HRA to other employees cannot be relied upon to claim parity.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Rajasthan High Court directs seizure of driver’s phone; issues contempt notice over unauthorised recording of court proceedings<\/a><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/span> | Explainer: Limitation, Waiver, and MGCC Shortfall Deductions under Arbitral Awards in Section 34 Proceedings<\/p>\n

In SAIL v. Primetals Technologies India (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 711<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that the respondent’s claims were within limitation as the cause of action arose only upon actual deduction of the MGCC shortfall from the final invoices in July 2018 and not from the earlier notice contemplating such deduction. The Court further observed that waiver or estoppel could not be inferred merely from execution of discharge certificates or affidavits prior to the deductions, particularly in the absence of conscious relinquishment of rights. Interpreting the contractual clauses governing taxes, duties and CENVAT Credit, the Court held that while the contract disentitled reimbursement of duty in certain contingencies, there was no clause authorising deduction of the alleged shortfall in MGCC from the contract price itself. Holding the arbitrator’s interpretation to be plausible and free from perversity or patent illegality, the Court declined interference with the award, including the grant of interest and costs.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Can shortfall in MGCC be deducted from net contract value? Delhi High Court explains<\/a><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/span> | No Clause, No Deduction: Arbitral Award Set Aside Allowing MGCC Shortfall Deduction as Patently Illegal<\/p>\n

In Primetals Technologies India (P) Ltd. v. SAIL<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 713<\/a>, the Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the arbitral award passed by the arbitrator was vitiated by patent illegality. The Court held that an arbitrator cannot permit deduction for MGCC shortfall from the invoices in absence of any clause in the contract permitting so.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PCPNDT ACT<\/span> | Non-Maintenance of Form F Records Is Springboard for Foeticide: 80-Year-Old’s Conviction under PCPNDT Act, upheld<\/p>\n

In Pushap Lata v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 8417<\/a>, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction of the 80 years old petitioner, owner of M\/s Mittal Maternity & Scan Centre, Barnala. The Court held that improper maintenance of Form F records amounted to a clear violation of PCPNDT Act and that even if the search was not conducted in strict compliance with Section 30, PCPNDT Act and Rule 12, 1996 Rules, the documents seized during such search remained admissible and could be relied upon.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/span> | YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for scandalising judiciary through “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms” videos<\/p>\n

In Court on its own Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a>, a criminal contempt proceedings arising out of objectionable videos uploaded on the YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, the Delhi High Court sentenced contemnor Gulshan Pahuja to 6 months’ simple imprisonment along with fine after finding him guilty of scandalising the judiciary and lowering the authority of the courts through derogatory and malicious remarks against judicial officers and the judicial system.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/span> Sub-Broker or Seller? Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection from Arrest in ₹5.63 Crore Unlisted NSE Shares Dispute<\/a><\/p>\n

CUSTODIAL DEATH<\/span> | Failure of three institutions? CBI Intervention Directed in 2010 Custodial Death of a Disabled Man<\/p>\n

In Assn. for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives v. State of U.P.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, wherein a PIL was filed in 2010 regarding the alleged custodial murder of a disabled man, the Allahabad High Court held that all 3 institutions, the Court, the State, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), failed in the present case. Considering the repeated failed attempts by the Court to secure the videography evidence, as the State and the police were being evasive in their response, the Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through its Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) office, Ghaziabad, to secure the video within 60 days from the date of this order and produce it before the Court on the next hearing.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI RIOTS<\/span> | Bail Granted to Accused Salim Malik in 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case, Supreme Court’s Gulfisha Fatima Principles Applied<\/p>\n

In Salim Malik Munna v. State7<\/sup><\/a>, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, holding that his role was comparable to co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PENSION<\/span> | Pension Withheld Permanently Following Conviction — No Show-Cause Notice, No Opportunity of Being Heard; Unreasoned Order Quashed<\/p>\n

In a writ petition titled Ramjilal Jangid v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a>, where the order, withholding permanently the previously sanctioned pension to the petitioner, passed by the respondents in exercise of powers under Regulation 4, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1989, was challenged, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the impugned order holding that that the order suffers from complete non-application of mind and is not a reasoned administrative order and that compliance of principles of natural justice is implicit before passing such an adverse order.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

FOREIGN COURTS<\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/span> | A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute<\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Taylor v. Killer Queen<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a>, filed by an Australian fashion designer’s mark “Katie Perry”, challenging the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s order cancelling her registered trade mark “KATIE PERRY” in class 25 for clothing, the Australian High Court, by a 3:2 majority, allowed the appeal and reinstated the validity of Katie Taylor’s “Katie Perry” trade mark, holding that Americal Singer Katy Perry’s musical fame did not amount to a trade mark reputation in clothing at the relevant date, and that the respondents’ deliberate infringement could not justify cancellation. Accordingly, the Court granted protection to Sydney designer’s ‘Katie Perry’ mark in trade mark dispute with American Singer Katy Perry.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

TRIBUNALS AND COMMISSIONS<\/p>\n

TAX LAW<\/span> | Denial of S. 54 exemption based solely on delayed encashment of consideration cheques, rejected<\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Chandra Swaminathan v. CIT<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a>, filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that delayed encashment of consideration cheques cannot by itself justify denial of exemption under Section 54<\/a>, Income-tax Act, 1961<\/a> or addition under Section 69-A once the assessee establishes the transaction through registered conveyance deeds, banking trail and vendor confirmation. The Tribunal further held that registered instruments carry a strong presumption of validity and cannot be disregarded merely on suspicion.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

TARIFFS<\/span> | Delays by EPC Contractor and Gas Supplier Are Controllable Factors Under CERC Tariff Regulations; Their Cost Cannot Be Passed to Consumers<\/p>\n

In an appeal titled TSECL v. NEEPCO<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a>, challenging the tariff order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) concerning the Tripura Gas Based Power Plant (101 MW), the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity allowed the appeal filed by Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., (TSECL) and partly set aside the impugned order to the extent it condoned delays attributable to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) and permitted capitalisation of the resulting cost escalation. The Tribunal held that delays caused by the generating company’s contractor and gas supplier were controllable factors under the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014 and therefore the additional burden could not be shifted to consumers.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CONDONATION OF DELAY<\/span> | 1-day delay beyond statutory 45-day limit under Section 61(2) IBC refused to be condoned despite e-filing portal glitches<\/p>\n

In EPFO v. Rolta India Ltd. (Resolution Professional)<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, the NCLAT dismissed the delay condonation application and the memo of appeal stating that the Appellate Tribunal had not been vested with any discretionary power to admit an appeal after the expiry of extended 15 days period. The Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal was filed on the 46th day from the date of the impugned order, fell beyond the statutory outer limit of 45 days under Section 61(2)<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) and was not maintainable.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

OTHER UPDATES<\/p>\n

NEWS<\/h3>\n