{"id":398721,"date":"2026-10-14T10:30:41","date_gmt":"2026-10-14T05:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=398721"},"modified":"2026-10-14T10:41:02","modified_gmt":"2026-10-14T05:11:02","slug":"top-legal-developments-5-11-october-delhi-metro-shutdown-jantar-mantar-protest-bangalore-water-supply-triple-test-judgment-jio-trademark-infringement-rogue-websites-and-other-key-verdicts-and-pol","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/14\/top-legal-developments-5-11-october-delhi-metro-shutdown-jantar-mantar-protest-bangalore-water-supply-triple-test-judgment-jio-trademark-infringement-rogue-websites-and-other-key-verdicts-and-pol\/","title":{"rendered":"Top Legal Developments [5-11 October]: Delhi Metro shutdown Jantar Mantar protest, Bangalore Water Supply Triple Test judgment, JIO trademark infringement rogue websites and other Key verdicts and Policy Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This roundup of weekly legal developments in India covers significant Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including the Supreme Court’s observations on the Delhi Metro and railway shutdown ahead of the Jantar Mantar protest, the nine-Judge Bench verdict reaffirming the Triple Test under the Industrial Disputes Act, cancellation of bail in the Dombivli doctors’ assault case, trademark infringement through fraudulent “JIO LOTTERY” websites, juvenile justice reforms and rehabilitation of care leavers, a husband’s maintenance obligation based on earning capacity, the requirement of intent to insult the National Flag, the investigation of caste atrocity complaints under the SC\/ST Act, and the DIFC Court’s approach to indemnity costs in cases involving disruptive litigation conduct, among other key rulings.<\/p>\n

TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Delhi Metro closures and alleged illegal detentions during CJP protest: What did the Supreme Court say on 11 October?<\/p>\n

The Division Bench took up an urgent hearing on a Sunday, in habeas corpus petitions alleging violation of the Court’s order dated 9 October 2026 concerning restrictions on public transportation in Delhi and of a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention of a large number of individuals on 10 October 2026.. The Court noted the allegations regarding metro station closures, disruption of public movement and detention beyond the area covered by the prohibitory order under Section 163<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS). Finding that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case, the Court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and directed to file counter-affidavit including a compliance report by 13 October 2026. along with a compliance report, by 13 October 2026. Read more about CJP Protest HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Shailendra Mani Tripathi<\/span> v. Govind Mohan<\/span>, Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 63801\/2026, decided on 11-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi metro and railway services ban ‘overreaching’: SC | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span><\/span> CJP Election Protest: Delhi Police closes 57 Metro | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Triple Test, sovereign functions and the Industrial Relations Code: Nine-Judge Bench verdict in Bangalore Water Supply explained<\/p>\n

In a reference on whether the nearly 5 decades old landmark decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board<\/span> v. A. Rajappa<\/span>, (1978) 2 SCC 213<\/a>, which laid down the “Triple Test” for determining whether an undertaking falls within the ambit of “industry” under Section 2(j)<\/a>, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/a> (Industrial Disputes Act), remains a good law, the Constitution Bench by 5:4 ratio, established that the “Triple Test” remained the governing legal framework for Section 2(j) of the repealed Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that: All matters currently pending before courts, tribunals, and labour authorities under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act continue to be governed and adjudicated under the original Triple Test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply. Industrial Relations Code, 2020<\/a> (Industrial Relations Code) was an independent, distinct enactment that must be interpreted entirely on its own terms, text, and statutory scheme whenever a proper controversy arises under it. Read more about the Nine-Judge Bench verdict in Bangalore Water Supply HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[State of U.P.<\/span> v. Jai Bir Singh<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1684<\/a>, decided on 20-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK<\/span><\/p>\n

Bail| Electoral mandate confers public authority, not unbridled power to command or intimidate; SC cancels bail in Dombivli doctors’ assault case<\/p>\n

While examining the legality of the Bombay High Court’s exercise of discretion in restoring bail to an elected municipal corporator and co-accused facing allegations of assaulting and intimidating doctors on duty at a municipal hospital, a Division Bench held that once the High Court had earlier stayed the bail orders upon forming a prima facie view of their serious infirmity, its subsequent departure without identifying any intervening circumstance and furnishing “cogent and discernible reasons” rendered the exercise of discretion unsustainable. Read more about<\/span> Dombivli doctors’ assault case<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

[State of Maharashtra<\/span> v. Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2053<\/a>, decided on 28-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Civil Land Dispute | “Casting the shadow of criminality on a pure civil dispute”: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against GPA Holder in Civil Land Dispute<\/p>\n

In a case concerning the alleged criminalisation of a purely civil dispute arising out of a sale of land, a Division Bench held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a general-power-of-attorney (GPA) holder and confirming party to the subsequent sale, could not be sustained when the FIR against the landowners had already been quashed. Emphasising that the foundational ingredients of cheating were absent and that the petitioner’s culpability could not be stretched beyond that of the landowners, the Court observed that the case was a classic instance of “casting the shadow of criminality on a pure civil dispute” and reiterated the principle of judicial consistency and propriety in quashing the FIR against the petitioner as well. Read more about casting the shadow of criminality on a pure civil dispute HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Sudha Rakesh<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2062<\/a>, decided on 5-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

MAJOR HIGH COURT RULINGS THIS WEEK<\/span><\/p>\n

Arbitration| Final signed Booking Note overrides earlier Fixture Recap<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by SARR Freights Corporation against the order of the Single Judge refusing interim relief in the form of an anti-arbitration injunction, a Division Bench held that where parties have reduced their agreement into a final, signed, clear and unambiguous written instrument which expressly supersedes their previous arrangements, the terms of that instrument must govern the contractual relationship. Prior negotiations, correspondence or communications cannot be relied upon to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms, except where the document is ambiguous, defective or unmeaning in its application to existing facts. Since the Booking Note incorporated only Clauses 20—41 and the arbitration clause was contained in Clause 43, there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The Court therefore held that the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) arbitration had no contractual basis and granted an anti-arbitration injunction. Read more about why Delhi HC grants anti-arbitration injunction as no arbitration agreement existed HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[SARR Freights Corpn.<\/span> v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7230<\/a>, decided on 18-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Bail| Prosecutrix must be heard before grant of regular bail<\/p>\n

In a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a case under Section 376<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> read with Section 69<\/a>, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNS) a Single Judge Bench set aside the bail order after finding that the prosecutrix was not afforded an opportunity to be present and heard. Read more about victim’s right to participate at all stages of criminal proceedings HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Ms G<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7473<\/a>, decided on 28-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Family Law| Mere non-return of Stridhan insufficient for S. 406<\/a> IPC<\/a> without specific entrustment or dominion<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’), seeking quashment of FIR, for offences under Sections 498-A<\/a> and 406<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench partly allowed the petition. The Court held that the allegations of cruelty and harassment, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case under Section 498A<\/a> IPC<\/a>. However, the complaint and chargesheet did not disclose that the alleged stridhan had been entrusted to the petitioner or that the petitioner had exercised dominion over it. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 406<\/a> IPC<\/a> were quashed qua the petitioner. Read more about offence under S. 406<\/a> IPC<\/a> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Harcharanjeet Bains<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7186<\/a>, decided on 16-9- 2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Intellectual Property| Delhi High Court restrains rogue “JIO LOTTERY” websites in Reliance’s trade mark suit; Directs suspension of listed domains<\/p>\n

In a case concerning infringement of the registered and well-known trade mark “JIO” through websites offering lottery, gaming, payment-related and allied services, a Single Judge Bench observed that the impugned websites prima facie satisfied the test of a rogue website as laid down in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002<\/a>. The Court restrained the defendant from using the impugned marks “JIO”, “JIO LOTTERY” and “JIO LOTTERY GAME” or any other mark identical with, near-identical to or deceptively similar to Reliance Industries Ltd.’s registered trade mark “JIO”, amounting to infringement of its registered trade marks. Read more about Reliance’s trade mark suit HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Rahul Meena<\/span>, CS(COMM) 1043 of 2026, decided on 7-10-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Juvenile Justice| What happens to children when they turn 18 and leave care?<\/p>\n

In a petition concerning determination of juvenility under Section 94<\/a>, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015<\/a> (JJ Act), a Single Judge Bench upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s claim that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence, holding that greater evidentiary value could be accorded to the earliest school admission record where there is a conflict regarding the date of birth. While deciding the petition, the Court also expressed concern over the systemic deficiencies in preliminary assessment procedures under Sections 15<\/a> and 18(3)<\/a>, JJ Act<\/a> and the rehabilitation of care leavers, and issued extensive directions and guidelines to strengthen the juvenile justice framework in the State. Read more about Rajasthan HC’s directions on Care leavers and JJ Act reforms HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[X<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6874 of 2024, decided on 3-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Maintenance| Can a husband capable of earning avoid maintenance by pleading inability to pay<\/p>\n

In a revision petition filed by a husband against the maintenance granted by the trial court to his wife, the Single Judge Bench dismissed the revision, holding that there was no scope for interference with the impugned order. The Court also reiterated that it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Mohd. Kamil<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 34067<\/a>, decided on 30-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

National Honour Act| Display of National Flag with saffron down not an offence under National Honour Act without intention to insult<\/p>\n

While considering a petition under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) seeking quashment of proceedings alleging insult to the Indian National Flag, a Single Judge Bench held that intention to insult National Flag by displaying saffron down is a necessary ingredient of the offence under Clause (l) of Explanation 4 to Section 2<\/a>, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971<\/a> (National Honour Act), and in the absence of prosecution materials demonstrating such intention, the proceedings could not be permitted to continue. Read more about offence under National Honour Act HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Mohd. Kasim H.K.<\/span> v. UT of Lakshadweep<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 15991<\/a>, decided on 26-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

SC\/ST Act| Prior complaints cannot discredit distinct caste atrocity complaint<\/p>\n

In a criminal revisional application filed under Section 482<\/a> read with Sections 395<\/a>\/397<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) by the de facto complainant, challenging the rejection of his protest (na-raji) petition and the acceptance of a Final Report True, No Clue (FRT), The Court set aside the order of the Special Court and held that the acceptance of a “Nil\/No clue” report could not be sustained where the investigation had failed to adequately pursue available digital evidence. The Court further held that the fact that the complainant had instituted other special cases could not constitute a legal basis to discredit a distinct subsequent complaint alleging casteist insults through social media. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Sayan Mondal<\/span> v. State of W.B.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 14815<\/a>, decided on 25-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

FOREIGN COURT UPDATES<\/p>\n

DIFC Court refuses indemnity costs despite ‘highly disruptive’ litigation conduct<\/p>\n

Following its success at trial, Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QPSC sought indemnity costs against Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited, relying on a pattern of disruptive litigation conduct, including late changes of position, withdrawal of witnesses, last-minute notifications concerning contested issues and procedural applications. Sapna Jhangiani, J., accepted that many of the complaints were well-founded and found that the defendant’s conduct had been “disorganised, often very last-minute, and in many instances highly disruptive to the proceedings”. However, the Court held that the conduct, while misguided and often highly inconvenient, did not disclose dishonesty, bad faith, abuse of process or other misconduct capable of taking the matter outside the norm. Observing that the high threshold for indemnity costs had not been met, the Court awarded the claimant its costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, and ordered a payment on account representing 65% of the claimant’s claimed costs. Read more HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

[Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QPSC<\/span> v. Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited<\/span>, Claim No. CFI 053 of 2024, decided on 12-9-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

THIS WEEK’S KEY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE <\/span> <\/p>\n