{"id":400825,"date":"2026-11-07T16:30:28","date_gmt":"2026-11-07T11:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=400825"},"modified":"2026-11-07T17:12:32","modified_gmt":"2026-11-07T11:42:32","slug":"high-courts-roundup-october-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/07\/high-courts-roundup-october-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"High Court Roundup October 2026: 33 rulings on arbitration, bail, anti-defection, IP, POCSO and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

October 2026 produced notable High Court rulings across arbitration, bail, criminal law, election law, intellectual property, family law, juvenile justice and POCSO. The Delhi High Court held an arbitral award unenforceable after one arbitrator was found to have handled 4,155 Axis Bank arbitrations, the Madras High Court held that resignation does not end anti-defection proceedings against six AIADMK MLAs, and the Kerala High Court allowed Aadhaar fingerprint comparison in a double-murder investigation. This roundup summarises 33 rulings, with a link to the full report of each.<\/p>\n

STORIES OF THE MONTH<\/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 Reliance Industries Ltd.<\/span> v. Rahul Meena<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7847<\/a>, 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.<\/span> v. 1337X.To<\/span>, 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 mark. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Reservation| NEET-UG Category Change: Madras High Court refuses General To OBC-NCL switch after results<\/p>\n

In Keerthi V.<\/span> v. Secretary, Medical Counselling Committee<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 9250<\/a>, filed by a NEET-UG 2026 candidate seeking permission to participate in the 15 per cent All India Quota counselling as an Other Backward Class—<\/del>—<\/ins>Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) candidate after having applied for the examination under the general category, a Single Judge Bench held that a candidate who failed to avail the prescribed opportunities to correct the category in the application could not seek a change after the declaration of results, particularly when the counselling rules expressly prohibited such alterations. Read more<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CHILDREN’S ACTS | Juvenile found guilty of murder ‘cannot go unpunished’: 27 years on, conviction upheld; sentence left to JJ Board<\/p>\n

The Allahabad High Court in Karuna Shanker Singh<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 40639<\/a>, upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as the appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of the offence. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION<\/p>\n

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

In SARR Freights Corpn.<\/span> v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7230<\/a>, 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—<\/del>—<\/ins>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. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Same Arbitrator in 4,155 Cases? Delhi High Court Declares Award Unenforceable, Seeks Affidavits from Axis Bank and RBI<\/p>\n

A Division Bench in Shikha Ghosh<\/span> v. Axis Bank Ltd.<\/span>, FAO (COMM) 91\/2025 & CM APPL. 20542\/2025, declared an arbitral award unenforceable against the borrower, noting the Axis Bank Ltd.’s (the Respondent Bank) concession awards passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrators are void ab initio, and observed that the repeated unilateral appointment of the same arbitrator by a party in multiple cases strikes at the very essence of neutrality envisaged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act), thereby rendering the resultant award void ab initio. While allowing the appeal, the Court directed the Respondent Bank & RBI to file its responses via fresh affidavits concerning the case at hand. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CONTEMPT OF COURT<\/p>\n

“Apology is not a weapon of defence”: Bombay High Court holds two lawyers who threatened a Judge guilty of criminal contempt<\/p>\n

In Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid<\/span> v. Sagar Durgadas Rathod<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 14695<\/a>, a criminal contempt reference arising from allegations that 2 advocates threatened a judicial officer during judicial proceedings, the Division Bench held the respondents guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971<\/a>; stated that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. The Court directed that: 1. contemnor-respondents shall pay a fine of ₹2, 000 each; 2. in addition to the fine, the contemnor-Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay costs of ₹50,000 each, to be deposited in the High Court’s Public Welfare Account; 3. the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate the appropriate action against both the respondents. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CONSTITUTION<\/p>\n

Inside the Kerala HC Missing Rifleman Case: CBI Probe Ordered After 14 Years<\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition in Balan P.K.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 17617<\/a>, seeking effective steps to trace a missing rifleman of the Tripura State Rifles and a direction for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation, a Single Judge Bench held that the disappearance of the jawan during the course of a train journey from Ernakulam to Guwahati brought the matter within the Court’s jurisdiction and that the case constituted one of the rarest cases necessitating exercise of powers under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Accordingly, the Court directed CBI probe into disappearance of the rifleman missing for over 14 years. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Habeas corpus cannot compel an adult woman who voluntarily marries and resides with person of her choice to return to parental home<\/p>\n

While considering a habeas corpus petition in Bashir Ahmed<\/span> v. State (UT of J&K)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 1033<\/a>, in respect of a major woman who was missing, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once the corpus had attained majority and made a voluntary and unequivocal choice to accompany and reside with her husband, such decision had legal recognition and could not be displaced through a writ of habeas corpus in the absence of illegal detention. The Court consequently dismissed the petition filed by her father and held that she was at liberty to accompany the person of her choice. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Special Flight Returns (SFR-II) of PM’s foreign visits can be withheld under RTI Act on security grounds<\/p>\n

In Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force<\/span> v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 8265<\/a>, a petition filed under Articles 226<\/a>\/227<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> assailing the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order dated 8 July 2020 directing disclosure of Prime Minister’s special flight returns (SFRs) records, the Delhi High Court held that SFRs containing details of the Prime Minister’s foreign air travel can be withheld under Section 8(1)(a) and (g)<\/a>, Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (RTI Act), where disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Court set aside the CIC’s direction to disclose the records, holding that redacting the names of security personnel alone could not eliminate the potential risks to the Prime Minister’s security. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL LAW<\/p>\n

“Predator of innocent girls”: Bail denied to man accused of using fake matrimonial profiles to induce women into sexual relations on false promise of marriage<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court in Gaurav Jaiswal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7438<\/a>, refused to grant bail to an accused alleged to have operated 9 different matrimonial profiles using varying identities and particulars. The Court observed that the creation and operation of multiple matrimonial profiles, including one in which the accused posed as a woman, prima facie lent credence to the prosecution’s case that he was a “predator of innocent girls” and held that the case was not fit for grant of bail. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

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

In Ms G<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7473<\/a>, a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a case under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 69, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (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. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Man convicted in 2009 minor rape case released; notes parties are now married and settled separately<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court in Vakul Kapoor<\/span> v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7015<\/a>, stated that the appellant and the prosecutrix are living their married life with their respective spouses. Therefore, sending the appellant to jail, who has otherwise clean antecedents, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice. Thus, the Court accepted the appellant’s submissions and treated the period of custody already undergone by the appellant as sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice, and accordingly directed the appellant to be released. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Calcutta High Court quashes criminal proceedings against advocate over clients’ property transfer dispute<\/p>\n

In Subrata Halder<\/span> v. State of W.B.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 15286<\/a>, a criminal revisional application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 406, 448, 427, 506 and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with the consequential charge-sheet and criminal proceedings, the Court allowed the revisional application and held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, having regard to the civil and proprietary nature of the dispute. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Mere sale of garments bearing religious images does not attract section 295-A IPC, absent deliberate and malicious intent; Gujarat HC quashes FIR against Surat textile businessman<\/p>\n

In a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), in Bharatbhai Hirjibhai Shankar<\/span> v. State of Gujarat<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 8364<\/a>, seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 295-A read with Section 114, Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), the Single Judge Bench allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings qua the applicant, holding that mere sale of garments bearing religious images does not attract Section 295-A IPC absent deliberate and malicious intent. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Why was Sujit Bose denied bail in the alleged municipal recruitment scam?<\/p>\n

In Sujit Bose<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 16109<\/a>, a bail application filed under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 45<\/a>, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a> (PMLA), in connection with the alleged municipal recruitment scam in West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court rejected the bail plea of Sujit Bose, former Minister of State and former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to overcome the rigours of Section 45 PMLA. Taking note of the ongoing investigation, the tracing of approximately 45 immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and his family, and the further investigation initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Use of Aadhaar database permitted for fingerprint comparison in double murder investigation; Privacy objection rejected<\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition filed by the State in State of Kerala<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 18775<\/a>, seeking assistance from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in investigating an unresolved double-murder case, the Kerala High Court held that the statutory restrictions under Sections 28<\/a> and 29<\/a>, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016<\/a> (Aadhaar Act), would not bar disclosure ordered under Section 33 and that the investigating agency’s request did not involve transmission of core biometric information. The Court consequently permitted Aadhaar database access in criminal investigation and directed UIDAI to conduct fingerprint comparison and furnish information regarding persons whose fingerprints were found matching with those recovered during investigation. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Woman can be charged with gang rape for sharing common intention; “Persons” under Section 70 BNS is gender neutral<\/p>\n

In ANSXXX<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7997<\/a>, concerning whether a woman can be charged with gang rape despite not physically committing the act of rape, the Delhi High Court held that gang rape under Section 376-D, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 70, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is a separate and substantive offence, and that the word “persons” in it is gender neutral. A woman who forms part of a group or acts in furtherance of a common intention to have rape committed on the victim, can therefore be charged with the offence. The Court clarified that a woman alone cannot be charged with gang rape and expressed no opinion on whether a woman can commit rape or whether the word “man” in Section 63 BNS is gender neutral. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Can 4.5 years in custody earn bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA? Appeal denied in Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case<\/p>\n

In Wasim Ali<\/span> v. NIA<\/span>, New Delhi, D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 438 of 2024, dismissing a batch of criminal appeals against the rejection of bail in the Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case, the Rajasthan High Court held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie true case under Section 43D(5) UAPA, and that the accused could not secure bail merely on the basis of prolonged custody when the trial was proceeding at a fast pace. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

DISPARAGEMENT<\/p>\n

Gillette’s Disparagement Plea: Bombay Shaving Company Restrained from Running Revised Switch4 Advertisement<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court in Gillette India Ltd.<\/span> v. Visage Lines Personal Care (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7466<\/a>, prima facie found that the purportedly “revised” advertisement, concerning Gillette’s products, had no perceptible difference in its impact from the original advertisement. While considering the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the Court directed Bombay Shaving Company not to run the revised advertisement till the next date of hearing and directed that the plaintiff’s interim injunction application be heard along with the contempt application. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

EDUCATION LAW<\/p>\n

Ad interim relief granted to PCI-approved pharmacy college, inclusion in upcoming Central Admission Process rounds directed despite State ban<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court in Shri Shamrao Patil (Yedravkar) Educational and Charitable Trust<\/span> v. Pharmacy Council of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12697<\/a>, noted that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) had already granted approval to the petitioner-institution after carrying out an inspection. The Court observed that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the State authorities to impose such a blanket ban would be considered at the final hearing. Following the course adopted in earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court, including Dhumane Patil Foundation v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11462 and Mauli Vidyapith Kaij v. Pharmacy Council of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12688, the Court granted ad interim relief and directed Respondent 3 to include the petitioner-institution’s name on its website and Respondent 7 to shortlist the institution in the upcoming central admission process (CAP) rounds. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Big relief to FMGE aspirants; Procedure for issuance of duplicate NEET-UG scorecards simplified<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court in Ayush Kumar<\/span> v. National Testing Agency<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7468<\/a>, allowed the application and issued directions simplifying the procedure for issuance of duplicate NEET-UG scorecards to enable FMGE aspirants to participate in the examination. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

ELECTION LAW<\/p>\n

Resignation does not end Anti-Defection Proceedings: Madras HC on AIADMK MLAs who Resigned and later joined TVK<\/p>\n

In Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy<\/span> v. Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 9277<\/a>, a batch of petitions filed by Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, the official whip and authorised signatory of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and, in one petition, by Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, challenging the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s acceptance of the resignations of 6 AIADMK MLAs who subsequently joined the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), the Division Bench held that the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly may accept an MLA’s resignation even when proceedings seeking the member’s disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution are pending. However, acceptance of the resignation does not render the disqualification proceedings academic or infructuous, and the Speaker must still decide them in accordance with law. Directing expeditious adjudication, the Court ordered the Speaker to conclude the pending disqualification proceedings within 2 months and publish a timetable for their disposal within 7 days. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Use of children to influence voters is in “bad taste”, but does not warrant setting aside election: Plea against TVK candidate, rejected<\/p>\n

In an application filed under Order 14 Rule 8, High Court O.S. Rules, read with Sections 81<\/a> and 86(1)<\/a>, Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/a> (the Act), and Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), in K. Sivakumar v. Rajendran R., OA No. 890 of 2026 in ELP No. 46 of 2026, in K. Sivakumar<\/span> v. Rajendran R<\/span>., OA No. 890 of 2026 in ELP No. 46 of 2026, seeking rejection of the election petition challenging Rajendran R.’s election as the Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Salem North Assembly Constituency, the Madras High Court held that persuading parents through children to vote for a particular candidate did not, by itself, amount to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Act. The Court described the involvement of children in such campaigning as being in “bad taste” and reflecting “poor parenting”, but held that the allegations did not disclose a triable issue of undue influence. It further held that violation of the Election Commission of India’s circular prohibiting the use of children in election campaigns was not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the election. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS<\/p>\n

Mere completion of ITI course or ability to move independently does not establish financial self-sufficiency; Maintenance for disabled child despite attaining majority affirmed<\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court in Samit Pramanick<\/span> v. State of W.B<\/span>., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 14034<\/a>, held that the impugned orders suffer from no material irregularity or legal impropriety, and the trial court has correctly interpreted the statutory safeguards protecting a physically handicapped adult dependent. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

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

In Harcharanjeet Bains<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7186<\/a>, a petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking quashment of FIR, for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (‘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 IPC. 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 IPC were quashed qua the petitioner. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

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

In Mohd. Kamil<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine All 34067<\/a>, a petition was 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<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Child cannot be made a “football” between parents: Father’s visitation rights upheld, said that child cannot be deprived of either parent’s love and affection<\/p>\n

In Babita<\/span> v. Pramod<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 8314<\/a>, a matter concerning the visitation rights of an estranged father, the Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ. upheld a Family Court order granting a father visitation rights to his 15-year-old son on the first and third Saturdays of every month, observing that a child cannot be made a “football” between estranged parents. The Court held that parents cannot, through a mutual settlement, deprive a child of the love, affection and companionship of either parent, emphasising that the child’s welfare remains paramount and that consent-based custody arrangements may be modified whenever the child’s best interests so require. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

GOODS AND SERVICE TAX<\/p>\n

GST on Copyright Licensing of Films; Digital Content Cannot Be Equated with “Software”<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court in Dharma Productions (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12696<\/a>, held that licensing by the original copyright holder falls under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 997332, and that classification must be determined by the essential character of the supply, not the mode of transmission. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY LAWS<\/p>\n

CIRP and subsequent jurisdictional proceedings constitute sufficient cause: SAP India’s Arbitral Tribunal mandate extended by one year<\/p>\n

The Bombay High Court in SAP India (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Cox and Kings Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12690<\/a>, held that the petitioner had made out sufficient cause for extending the mandate of the Tribunal. The Court observed that the arbitral proceedings had been adjourned sine die after the respondent was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and the moratorium under Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), came into force, following which the respondent invoked fresh arbitration involving a virtually identical claim. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK<\/p>\n

Mere trade mark registration insufficient to establish first ownership of copyright in original artistic work<\/p>\n

In Japan Tobacco Inc<\/span> v. Central Wearhouse<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7818<\/a>, concerning rectification of the Register of Copyrights in respect of an artistic work incorporating the “CAMEL” mark, the Delhi High Court held that mere registration of a trade mark could not, by itself, establish the proprietor thereof as the “first owner” of copyright in the underlying original artistic work. Emphasising that the petitioner was required to establish, as a fact, its first ownership and first publication of the original artistic work under Section 17<\/a>, Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>, the Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on prior trade mark registrations and books relating to the history of the “CAMEL” brand, without duly proving the relevant documents, was insufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof. The Court further held that alleged admissions made in a separate trade mark infringement suit could not establish the petitioner’s copyright ownership, and dismissed the petition seeking rectification and expunging of the impugned copyright registration. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Injunction granted to Mankind against ‘ACNE SCAR’ mark for infringing ‘ACNESTAR’ trade mark<\/p>\n

In Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Alaina Healthcare (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 8260<\/a>, a trade mark infringement suit instituted by Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd., the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations, skin care preparations, or allied and cognate goods under the marks “ACNE SCAR”, “ACNE + SCAR”, “ACNESCAR”, or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered trade mark “ACNESTAR”. Holding that the rival marks were phonetically nearly indistinguishable and that the possibility of confusion among consumers or chemists could not be ruled out, the Court found a prima facie case of infringement and directed Defendant 2 to recall existing stock and withdraw online listings within 2 months. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

JUVENILE JUSTICE<\/p>\n

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

In X<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6874 of 2024, 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 and 18(3), JJ Act and the rehabilitation of care leavers, and issued extensive directions and guidelines to strengthen the juvenile justice framework in the State. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES<\/p>\n

Young age, prior romantic relationship, differing statements: Bail granted in POCSO case<\/p>\n

While considering a regular bail application for offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (POCSO Act), in Vicky<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7791<\/a>, the Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for about 3 years, observing that the prosecutrix’s contradictory statements, the documented romantic relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, their young ages, the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial was likely to take time constituted mitigating circumstances tilting the balance in favour of bail. Read more<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/p>\n