{"id":391518,"date":"2026-07-27T18:00:20","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T12:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=391518"},"modified":"2026-07-27T18:01:24","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T12:31:24","slug":"top-legal-developments-this-week-sonam-wangchuk-social-audit-tihar-jail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/27\/top-legal-developments-this-week-sonam-wangchuk-social-audit-tihar-jail\/","title":{"rendered":"TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [20-26t July, 2026] | From the Education Minister’s Resignation to Children’s Fundamental Right to Play"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Catch up on the top legal developments this week (20-26 July 2026), including student protests, pre-trial incarceration, sexual assault of minor daughter, social audit, community service, taarikh pe taarikh, Zara trade mark, children’s fundamental right to play, freedom of press, and more.<\/p>\n

STORY OF THE WEEK<\/p>\n

Dharmendra Pradhan Steps Down as Education Minister Amid Mass Student Protests; Pralhad Joshi Takes Additional Charge<\/p>\n

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has stepped down from his post following intense nationwide student demonstrations and agitations at Jantar Mantar over examination irregularities. Acting on the Prime Minister’s advice, the President of India accepted his resignation under Article 75, while Cabinet Minister Pralhad Joshi has been given additional charge of the Ministry of Education.<\/p>\n

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

Delhi High Court appoints Anu Grover Baliga as Special Judge of Fast Track Court for Paper Leak matters, following PM’s announcement<\/p>\n

On 23 July 2026, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice D.K. Upadhyaya by a notification, has appointed Anu Grover Baliga1 as the Special Judge of the newly designated Fast Track Court to exclusively try offences under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024<\/a>, along with connected offences. The newly designated Fast Track Court will function at the Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi, where all matters under the Act and connected offences will be listed and heard by Judge Baliga.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read<\/p>\n

Government Announces Fast-Track Courts for Examination Paper Leak Cases<\/a><\/p>\n

Hospitalisation Was to Save His Life, Not Confine Him: Delhi HC Declines to Order Transfer of Sonam Wangchuk to Medanta; He Sets 3 Conditions to Break His Fast<\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi HC Directs Production of Comprehensive Medical Record Before Proceeding in Plea Seeking Sonam Wangchuk’s Transfer to Medanta Hospital<\/a><\/p>\n

Doctors agree he needs constant monitoring; at the hospital he chooses: Inside the Court order directing Sonam Wangchuk’s transfer to Medanta Hospital<\/a><\/p>\n

SCAORA condemns lathi charge & tear gas against students, youth at ‘Chalo Sansad’ protest, calls upon authorities to investigate allegations of excessive force<\/a><\/p>\n

SCBA condemns lathi charge on students at ‘Chalo Sansad’ protest; President Vikas Singh writes to PM Modi & Home Minister Amit Shah seeking judicial enquiry<\/a><\/p>\n

PIL Filed in Supreme Court Seeking Standard Investigation Procedure and Time-Bound Probe for Paper Leaks; Urges Reconsideration of Selvi Ruling<\/a><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

BAIL<\/span> | Pre-Trial Incarceration Beyond 11 Months Unwarranted Where Strict Bail Conditions Can Adequately Safeguard Prosecution’s Interests; Bail Granted<\/span><\/p>\n

In Raju Prasad v. State of Rajasthan<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1353<\/a>, the Supreme Court granted bail to an attesting witness accused in a forged Power of Attorney case, holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration was unnecessary where strict bail conditions could safeguard the prosecution’s interests.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

DEBT AND MONETARY LAWS<\/span> | Pre-2016 DRT Recovery Certificate Is Not “Decree or Order” u\/S. 9(2) Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act; Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings<\/span><\/p>\n

The appeal concerned with the interpretation of Section 9(2)<\/a>, Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909<\/a> (Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act), and whether a recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can be treated as a “decree or order” for initiating insolvency proceedings. Reaffirming the principle that insolvency laws must be strictly construed due to their serious civil consequences, the Supreme Court in H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. v. Kishore K. Mehta<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1320<\/a> ,held that a recovery certificate issued by the DRT before the before the insertion of Section 19(22-A)<\/a>, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993<\/a> (Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act), i.e., 2016 Amendment, could not be treated as a “decree or order” under Section 9(2)<\/a>, Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act<\/a> and, therefore, could not form the basis of an insolvency notice under Section 9(2)<\/a>, Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Mere Call Records Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Supreme Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction for Wife’s Murder; Acquits Co-Accused<\/a><\/p>\n

RAILWAYS<\/span> | The Ticket Was in the Bag That Was Never Found: ₹8 Lakh granted to Widow, Said Absence of Ticket Alone Cannot Defeat a Bona Fide Passenger’s Claim<\/span><\/p>\n

In Lata v. Union of India<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1350<\/a>, wherein the wife of a deceased train passenger challenged the concurrent dismissal of her compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that compensation under Section 124-A<\/a>, Railways Act, 1989<\/a> cannot be denied merely because the deceased’s railway ticket was not recovered after an untoward incident. The Court held that while the claimant must initially establish the foundational facts of the journey and occurrence of the incident, such burden can be discharged through relevant evidence, including an affidavit, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

RAILWAYS<\/span> | Railways not liable for shortage of goods booked at “owner’s risk” unless negligence or misconduct is proved under Section 97 Railways Act<\/span><\/p>\n

In Bajaj Trading Co. v. Union of India<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1343<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that where goods are booked at “owner’s risk”, liability of the Railway Authorities can be fastened only upon proof of negligence or misconduct under Section 97<\/a>, Railways Act, 1989<\/a>. The Court observed that in cases where the consignment is not verified by Railway employees, the burden of proving the quantity of goods lies upon the consignor, consignee or endorsee under Section 65(2) of the Act. Finding that the goods were loaded without railway supervision, the sender’s weight was accepted, and the railway receipt contained a “said to contain” endorsement, the Court held that the appellant failed to establish negligence on the part of the Railways and dismissed the appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

CRIMINAL LAW<\/span> | Sentencing Must Strike Judicious Balance Between Interests of Victim, Society and Accused; Gang Rape Sentence modified to 20 Years of Rigorous Imprisonment<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Ehsaan v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1356<\/a>, filed for examining the scope of the doctrine of proportionality in sentencing while considering whether imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life under Section 376-D<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> was justified, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 376-D<\/a> IPC<\/a>, but modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with benefit of remission, if otherwise admissible in law, holding that while the statute mandates at least the minimum punishment, it does not require that every conviction must necessarily result in imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. Sentencing must conform to the doctrine of proportionality, thereby, “striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law”.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: S. 66 IT Act is bailable offence; Supreme Court clarifies S. 77-B must be read to ascertain nature of offence under S. 66<\/a><\/p>\n

JUVENILE JUSTICE<\/span> | Murder is “Heinous Offence” under JJ Act; JJ Board Must Holistically Evaluate All Relevant Material During Preliminary Assessment<\/span><\/p>\n

The appeal titled X4 v. State of Bihar<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1363<\/a>, arose from the Patna High Court’s judgment dated 24 July 2025 affirming the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chapra, directing that the appellant, a child in conflict with law aged above 16 years, be tried as an adult for offences punishable under Sections 302<\/a>, 201<\/a> and 34<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC). The Court examined the legality of the preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015<\/a> (JJ Act), the classification of murder as a “heinous offence” the scope of appellate powers under Section 101(2)<\/a>, JJ Act<\/a>, and the principles governing preliminary assessment under Section 15. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, the trial court’s order directing trial before the Children’s Court and the classification of murder under Section 302<\/a> IPC<\/a> as a “heinous offence” under the JJ Act.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

HIGH COURT HIGHLIGHTS<\/span><\/p>\n

POCSO<\/span> | Betrayed Her Trust, Destroyed Her Life, Degraded Her Very Soul: Life Sentence of man convicted of impregnating 12-year-old daughter, upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Bandu Vishwanath Matte v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 6366<\/a>, challenging the sentence for sexually assault of a minor daughter by her father, the Bombay High Court held that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident, was subjected to forceful sexual assault by her father and the DNA report established the facts; thus, no reason found to interfere with the impugned judgment or the sentence.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

SOCIAL AUDIT<\/span> | “Evolution and implementation of Social Audit need of hour”: Advocate directed to visit and spend time at old age home instead of paying cost<\/span><\/p>\n

In P.S. Mandeliya v. State of M.P.<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine MP 21826<\/a>, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the applicant’s counsel to visit an Old Age Home with food supplies and spend an hour with the residents instead of paying the cost. The Court remarked that this was a test case to give the concept of “Social Audit” a chance to gain ground.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Auction purchaser cannot claim cooperative housing society membership without clearing previous owner’s pending dues: Bombay High Court<\/a><\/p>\n

DELAY AND LATCHES<\/span>| 25 Years, No Conclusion: Warned Against “Taarikh pe Taarikh” Becoming the Hallmark of Criminal Justice, Grants Anticipatory Bail in 2001 Kidnapping Case<\/span><\/p>\n

In an anticipatory bail application titled Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine All 22408<\/a>, filed by 2 accused persons in a 2001 kidnapping case, the Allahabad High Court allowed the application, holding that it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the accused be protected. The Court expressed that it was deeply disturbing that the present criminal case revealed a disquieting state of affairs, wherein an FIR registered in 2001 remained pending for over 2 decades without reaching its logical conclusion, thereby reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

TRADE MARK<\/span> | Prior declaration as “well-known trade mark” not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2); cancels “ZORA” trade mark for similarity with “ZARA”<\/span><\/p>\n

In Industria De Diseno Textil v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5181<\/a>, the Delhi High Court held that Section 11(2) does not require an earlier trade mark to be formally declared a “well-known trade mark” before its proprietor can oppose registration of a similar or identical mark. The Court held that the Registrar had erred in dissecting the rival marks “ZARA” and “ZORA” instead of comparing them as a whole, contrary to the settled anti-dissection principle, and further failed to examine whether “ZARA” was entitled to protection as a well-known trade mark on the touchstone of Sections 2(1)(zg), 11(6) and (7) of the Act. Holding that “ZORA” was deceptively similar to “ZARA”, and that its adoption would take unfair advantage of and be detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the earlier mark, the Court allowed the appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Dependency, Not Legal Status, Governs Computation of Loss of Dependency; Second Wife and Minor Daughter Held Entitled to Compensation under MV Act: Karnataka HC<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

PRISON AND PRISONERS<\/span> | Fractured Hand, No Treatment, and a Demand for Protection Money: CCTV ordered to be preserved and independent medical examination to be held in Tihar Assault Allegations<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal appeal titled Ashish v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5184<\/a>, seeking the appellant’s immediate medical examination after allegations of custodial assault inside Tihar Jail, the Delhi High Court observed that the allegations, if true, were “extremely disconcerting”, particularly as they were levelled against the Head Warden himself. Considering the seriousness of the allegations that the appellant had sustained injuries, was denied medical treatment, and had also been subjected to an alleged demand for illegal protection money, the Court directed preservation of the relevant CCTV footage, ordered an independent medical examination of the appellant and 2 other injured inmates at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, and called for comprehensive reports from the Head Warden, the Jail Medical Officer and the Jail Superintendent to ascertain the true factual position.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

CHILD RIGHTS<\/span> | Common Areas Must Be Obstruction-Free, and Children Have a Fundamental Right to Play: Trial Court order set aside, Association directed to act within 3 Months<\/span><\/p>\n

In Sangeetha Agrawal v. Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Assn<\/span>.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 7971<\/a>, the Karnataka High Court held that common areas of the apartment must remain obstruction-free, affecting safe movement. The Court held that it is a fundamental right of the children to play and prohibiting them takes away their overall health. The restrictions on children’s recreation require reasonable justification.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Filing a DV Act Petition Does Not Automatically Entitle a Wife to Maintenance, Especially When She Earns More Than Her Husband: Karnataka HC<\/a><\/p>\n

FREEDOM OF PRESS<\/span> | Freedom of the Press Must Be Protected, But ‘Cannot become a shield for irresponsible journalism, intimidation’; Media regulation called for<\/span><\/p>\n

In Abid Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>,<\/span> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5173<\/a>, the Delhi High Court granted bail, holding that continued incarceration of the applicants was unwarranted in view of the doubtful identification, deficiencies in the investigation, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced. Recognising the growing phenomenon of unregulated digital journalism, where anyone with a mobile phone and microphone can present themselves as a reporter without professional accountability, the Court urged the legislature to consider an appropriate regulatory framework balancing press freedom with professional accountability.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

SERVICE LAW<\/span> | Blood and Urine Tests Not Mandatory in Departmental Proceedings to Prove Police Officer’s Drunkenness; Medical Certificate and Magistrate’s Observations Sufficient<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Tamil Nadu Police v. V. Arumuram<\/span>,<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a> wherein police personnel was found in a drunken state while deposing before a Judicial Magistrate, the Madras High Court underscored that the absence of blood and urine tests does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that the incident occurred inside the court hall in the presence of the Magistrate, who immediately directed medical examination, and highlighted that the drunkenness certificate issued by the Medical Officer, together with the Magistrate’s observations, was sufficient to establish misconduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Vehicle seized in NDPS case cannot be denied interim release merely because it may be confiscated later: J&K and Ladakh HC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/span> |<\/span> KG Admission Cannot be Declared Void After a Decade Due to Parents’ Incorrect Declaration: DOB Correction allowed in CBSE Records Based on Public Documents<\/p>\n

In Aarav Giri v. St. Columbas School<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5182<\/a>, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held that authentic public documents, including the Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and Passport, which carry a presumption of correctness, can form the basis for correction of educational records when their genuineness is undisputed. Thus, a student’s educational records may be corrected on the basis of reliable statutory public documents, even where the school and CBSE records are consistent with each other, as a court’s power to order correction is not restricted by the limitations applicable to the CBSE under its bye-laws.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Letter from separate confidential arbitration cannot be relied upon merely because relevant: Delhi HC upholds exclusion, dismisses S. 34 challenge<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/span> | Repeating Class Does Not Violate Right to Education: Detention of EWS student in Class V, upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

While Master Sorabh Rathor Through His Guardian Savitri v. North Delhi Public School<\/span><\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, the Delhi High Court interpreted Section 16<\/a>, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009<\/a> (RTE Act), and held that the prohibition against holding back children in elementary education must be construed in light of the legislative intent of providing children, particularly those from vulnerable sections, adequate opportunities for academic progression. The Court held that where a child is unable to comprehend basic concepts despite repeated opportunities, additional classes, and re-examinations, requiring the child to repeat a class would not amount to removal from education but would facilitate better learning outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Failure to prove treatment could have saved snake-bite victim defeats criminal negligence charge; Himachal Pradesh HC upholds acquittal in Snake-Bite Death Case<\/a><\/p>\n

MAINTENANCE<\/span> |<\/span> Wife who obtained custody asserting financial capacity cannot burden husband alone with minor’s maintenance<\/p>\n

In a revision petition titled Roji Bano v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 22081<\/a>, filed by a wife seeking maintenance, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that in the absence of any cogent material showing a substantial increase in the actual and reasonable expenses of the minor daughter, any material enhancement in the income of the husband, or any subsequent deterioration in the financial condition of the wife, no sufficient ground was made out either to grant interim maintenance to the wife in her individual capacity or to enhance the maintenance already awarded to the minor daughter. Thus, the Court denied maintenance to the wife and refused to enhance the minor daughter’s maintenance.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: 182 days alone isn’t enough: Karnataka HC holds purpose of stay is equally decisive under FEMA’s “person resident in India” test<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

TRADE MARK<\/span> | Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Registrar directed to Reconsider “OFFER” Mark Registration Application<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal titled ADS Spirits (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/span><\/span>3<\/sup><\/a>, challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks’s order refusing to register the word mark “OFFER” in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages on the ground that the mark lacked distinctiveness, the Delhi High Court held that for determining registrability under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, the relevant enquiry is whether the applied mark possesses distinctive character capable of distinguishing one trader’s goods from those of others. The statute does not require a mark to be unique, and distinctiveness must always be assessed with reference to the goods or services for which registration is sought. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Registrar to reconsider appellant’s trade mark application afresh, in light of parameters of Section 9(1)(a) and testing the distinctiveness of the mark “OFFER” in relation to the alcoholic beverages for which the registration was sought.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

COVID-19<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Knowledge’ is the hinge on which the offence turns: FIR against man booked over movement on a public road during COVID-19 lockdown, quashed<\/p>\n

In a petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered during the COVID-19 lockdown, the Delhi High Court held that mere movement on a public road during the lockdown, without proof of knowledge of a duly promulgated prohibitory order or satisfaction of the essential statutory ingredients of the offences alleged, cannot attract criminal liability under Sections 188<\/a>, 269<\/a>, 270<\/a> and 336<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC). The Court observed that knowledge of the order is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 188<\/a> IPC<\/a>, while prosecution under Sections 269<\/a> and 270<\/a> IPC<\/a> necessarily requires material showing that the accused was infected with, or had reason to believe that he was carrying, a disease dangerous to life. Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish these foundational requirements, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings as an abuse of the process of law.<\/p>\n

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

Also Read: Practicing Advocate Facing Criminal Charges for Alleged Wrong Legal Advice Gets Ad-Interim Protection from Bombay HC<\/a><\/p>\n

TRIBUNALS AND COMMISSIONS HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY<\/span> | Trick Question, Forced Action, Interface Interference: Three Dark Patterns on SpiceJet’s Booking Platform identified, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu case titled In the matter of: Use of dark patterns resulting in unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements, and violation of consumer rights by SpiceJet Ltd<\/span><\/span>4<\/sup><\/a>., filed against SpiceJet for “use of dark patterns resulting in unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements, and violation of consumer rights”, the Central Consumer Protection Authority held that the impugned interface deployed multiple prohibited dark patterns, resulting in unfair trade practices, misleading representations and impairment of consumer choice and informed decision-making.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY<\/span> | Chaayos Said the Service Charge Was Voluntary but Its Own Billing Software Said Otherwise: ₹50,000 Penalty imposed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a suo motu case titled<\/span> In the matter of Chaayos (Sunshine Teahouse Pvt. Ltd.) regarding alleged levying of service charge, violation of Consumer Rights and Unfair Trade Practices<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span>, lodged against Chaayos for charging a mandatory “service tax”1 separately in addition to CGST and SGST, the Central Consumer Protection Authority held that the restaurant had demonstrated a pattern of deliberate non-compliance with the “Guidelines to Prevent Unfair Trade Practices and Protection of Consumer Interest with Regard to Levy of Service Charge in Hotels and Restaurants”; directed the restaurant to reimburse to the aggrieved customer and payment of ₹50,000 penalty.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION<\/span> | Fresh arrest warrants issued against Angle Infrastructure Directors after interim protection declined<\/span><\/p>\n

In Sahendra Pal Singh v. Angle Infrastructure (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, the SCDRC directed the issuance of fresh arrest warrants against the Directors of Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., after noting that the judgment-debtors have failed to satisfy the decretal amount despite repeated opportunities. The Commission observed that although the previously issued warrants were returned unexecuted by the police authorities, the decree remains unsatisfied. Consequently, fresh warrants of arrest have been directed to be issued and executed through the Station House Officers.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

ELECTRONICS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT<\/span> | Vodafone Held Liable for Negligent Duplicate SIM Issuance in SIM-Swap Fraud; Central Bank Directed to Pay Interest for Delayed Fund Release<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> Ajaz Lal Attar v. ICICI Bank Ltd.<\/span>,7<\/sup><\/a><\/span> regarding cyber fraud where complainant’s bank account credentials were hacked siphoning money to another account, the EITAI Department held the telecommunication services provider, i.e. Vodafone liable for negligent issuance of duplicate SIM leading to SIM-Swap fraud and directed to pay damages of ₹1,00,000 to the complainant on account of its structural negligence and deficient internal controls, and directed Respondent 3, i.e. Central Bank of India, to pay the complainant 12 per cent annual interest on the blocked principal amount as they failed to perform the physical release and remittance of the contractually frozen amount even after an interim order dated 9 May 2022, thereby unlawfully disrupting the velocity of the complainant’s capital despite the judicial intervention causing an unjustifiable operational delay in the final remittance of the tracked funds.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

FOREIGN COURTS HIGHLIGHTS<\/p>\n

UK HIGH COURT<\/span> | JKM-TTF Pricing Clause in US$29 Million LNG Charterparty Dispute, interpreted<\/span><\/p>\n

In a US$29 million LNG charterparty dispute concerning the proper interpretation of a “JKM-TTF Spread” pricing clause titled<\/span> Briety Shipping Inc. v. Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a><\/span>,<\/span> UK High Court, held that the contractual expression “JKM-TTF Spread” required TTF to be deducted from JKM in accordance with the calculation methodology set out in the charterparty and did not permit negative values to be converted into positive ones. The Court further held that the mechanism was intended to reflect the LNG arbitrage opportunity arising where JKM exceeded TTF and was not designed to operate as a “two-way” pricing formula whenever the differential moved in either direction. Thus, finding no basis for the owner’s alternative claims for rectification based on common or unilateral mistake, the Court dismissed claims exceeding US$29 million for alleged underpayment of hire.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

United States District Court, New York<\/span>| Publishers, Author Scott Turow File Class Action Against Google Over Gemini AI Training on Copyrighted Works<\/span><\/p>\n

In Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Google LLC<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a>, Hachette Book Group Inc., Cengage Learning Inc., Elsevier Inc., bestselling author Scott Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E., Inc. have filed a proposed class action against Google LLC alleging large-scale copyright infringement in connection with the development and training of Google’s Gemini artificial intelligence models. The plaintiffs allege violations of the US Copyright Act, 1976 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 and seek damages, injunctive relief and other remedies.<\/p>\n

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

OTHER UPDATES<\/p>\n

LEGISLATIONS<\/p>\n

BCI Updates:<\/p>\n