Wednesday, 9 September 2026

The dispute. The Union of India terminated a railway contract awarded to GVV Constructions under standard conditions. Challenging this action, the contractor sought arbitration, while the Railways claimed that termination disputes constituted excepted matters outside arbitral scope. The High Court Division Bench directed the tribunal to decide claims strictly per contractual terms, prompting GVV to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Whether a contract termination dispute constitutes an excepted matter is a jurisdictional question committed to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16.

For your practice. Parties facing writ court interference can invoke kompetenz-kompetenz to preserve the arbitral tribunal's exclusive authority over excepted-matters clauses in public contracts.

The order. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, clarifying that the High Court's observations shall not impede the arbitral tribunal from deciding the termination dispute. The Court expressed no opinion on merits and awarded no costs.

Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

MS GVV CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD MANAGING DIRECTOR vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-012525-012525 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 976 · 08.09.2026

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe

Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed.

For your practice. Trial courts must now record a categorical, positive finding that the truth defence is bound to fail before granting any interim restraint in defamation cases. Vague injunction terms like 'third parties not directly involved' are legally defective. Communications in the nature of legal notices referencing parallel statutory proceedings receive heightened protection.

The order. Appeal allowed on contest. Impugned order dated April 4, 2026 (Order No. 5) in Title Suit No. 603 of 2026 set aside. Condonation of 38-day delay allowed without costs (CAN 1 of 2026). CAN 2 of 2026 disposed of. All observations tentative and not to influence trial of main suit. No order as to costs.

Bonnard Principle (Common Law principle adopted in Indian defamation jurisprudence)

Case

Anil Kaushik and Anr. vs. Sourabh Khemani

Citation

Calcutta High Court · FMAT/220/2026 · 2026:CHC-AS:1434-DB · 07.09.2026

Bench

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya; Sandip Kumar De

The dispute. The petitioner purchased four industrial plots for Rs 8.01 crore in a SARFAESI auction conducted by Indian Bank. When the buyer sought conveyance deeds, the development authority demanded unearned increase charges of Rs 2.25 crore that the bank had suppressed. When the bank disclaimed liability under the auction's as-is clause, the purchaser approached the High Court seeking conveyance and payment directions.

The reasoning. A generic as-is clause cannot override the secured creditor's statutory duty to disclose known material encumbrances in the sale notice.

For your practice. Auction purchasers can enforce statutory disclosure duties against lenders for hidden leasehold dues.

The order. The High Court directed Indian Bank to pay the unearned increase demanded by the development authority within four weeks.

Section 13(6), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Rules 8(7)(a), 8(7)(f), 9(9), 9(10), Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002

Case

JAISHREE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-10860/2017 · 2026:DHC:7673 · 08.09.2026

Bench

Jasmeet Singh

The dispute. The appellants purchased a commercial shop under an unregistered agreement to sell, paid full consideration, and leased the premises back to the vendor. After the vendor defaulted on rent and disputed their title, the buyers sued for specific performance and possession. The trial court rejected the plaint for non-registration and stamp deficiency under Order VII Rule 11(d), which the buyers appealed.

The reasoning. The High Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell is admissible for specific performance under the Section 49 proviso of the Registration Act.

Thus, while an unregistered agreement cannot be relied upon to claim the protection under Section 53-A, it may nevertheless form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be received in evidence for proving the contract.

For your practice. Lawyers can now confidently file specific performance suits on unregistered agreements with possession - no O. VII R. 11(d) bar. Stamp deficiency is a curable defect payable in court, not a jurisdictional flaw. Budget for 90% conveyance duty + 10x penalty upfront; advise clients on Collector refund route for penalty mitigation.

The order. Appeal allowed. Suit restored and remanded to LDJ. Appellants to deposit deficit stamp duty and penalty. On deposit, ATS admitted in evidence. Matter forwarded to Collector for penalty refund determination under S. 40 Stamp Act.

Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Case

DHARMENDRA SINGH & ors. vs FAZLU REHMAN

Citation

Delhi High Court · RFA(COMM)-134/2023 · 2026:DHC:7603-DB · 08.09.2026

Bench

Anil Kshetarpal

The statutory mandate is required to be taken into account in exercise of the power conferred under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

For your practice. Reaffirms Section 6(a) HMGA as binding starting point for under-five custody. Trial courts cannot substitute visitation for interim custody prayer without reasoning. Pendency of main suit does not oust Section 12 jurisdiction. Lawyers must frame interim custody prayers specifically under Section 12 read with Sections 6(a)/13 HMGA and challenge non-speaking orders as perverse.

The order. Appeal allowed. Family Court order dated 27.11.2025 quashed. Interim custody of daughter granted to mother.

Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Case

Dr. Sangeeta Vishwakarma @ Sangeeta Vishwakarma v. Rahul Ranjan

Citation

Jharkhand High Court · FA/335/2026 · 2026:JHHC:26921-DB · 07.09.2026

Bench

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD; SANJAY PRASAD

The dispute. An intellectual property firm representing Apple lodged a criminal complaint against an Ahmedabad retailer for selling counterfeit mobile accessories. The police raided the shop and seized fourteen categories of hardware and stickers valued at over fifteen lakh rupees. The shopkeeper petitioned the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings.

The reasoning. Commercial hardware and functional labels lack artistic originality, falling under trademark rather than copyright law. The search was void ab initio because police bypassed mandatory safeguards requiring the Registrar's opinion and a deputy superintendent.

For your practice. Defence counsel can quash copyright FIRs at the threshold when brand owners bypass mandatory statutory safeguards governing trademark search and seizure.

The order. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising from the seizure of goods valued at Rs 15,11,193. The rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Section 63, Copyright Act, 1957; Section 115(4), Trade Marks Act, 1999

Case

Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani v. State of Gujarat & ors.

Citation

Gujarat High Court · R/CR.MA/21846/2022 · 2026:GUJHC:56318 · 07.09.2026

Bench

P. M. Raval

The impugned orders, therefore, came to be passed by an authority lacking the competence to do so.

For your practice. Lawyers must verify delegation orders before accepting CBFC refusal orders. Regional Officers can only issue provisional certificates under S.7B(2). Final refusal requires Board or Chairperson decision. Recommendatory committees cannot substitute decision-making. Delay of four months under priority scheme deprecated. Fresh process now time-bound.

The order. Appeal disposed of. Impugned orders dated 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 withdrawn. Matter to be considered afresh by Chairperson, CBFC (competent authority per delegation order 29.08.2026). Reasonable opportunity of hearing mandated before any order. Committee reports and records to be supplied to appellant (member names protected under Rule 23(6)). Examining Committee to be constituted by 10.09.2026. Certification process to proceed under Rule 37 read with Rule 33(2) of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Section 7B, Cinematograph Act, 1952

Case

GURKARAN SINGH DHALIWAL vs CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · FAO/4033/2026 · 07.09.2026

Bench

HARKESH MANUJ

The underlying objective of the Act of 2007 is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens, but the provisions of the statute cannot be pressed into service for the adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes.

For your practice. Lawyers filing eviction petitions under the 2007 Act for senior citizens must now ensure the petition is not a proxy for a son's matrimonial strategy. Courts will scrutinize selective targeting of one child, parallel proceedings by the daughter-in-law, and whether rent arrears were raised before the Maintenance Tribunal. The daughter-in-law's shared household right under S. Vanitha acts as a substantive barrier.

The order. The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-2464-2026) as lacking merit, upholding the Single Judge's order dated 20.04.2026. The Court refrained from imposing heavy costs due to the appellant's advanced age. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No monetary relief or compliance deadlines were ordered.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Case

ANURADHA BANSAL vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · LPA/2464/2026 · 07.09.2026

Bench

SUVIR SEHGAL; RAJESH GAUR

The dispute. A depositor sought execution against company directors to enforce an award directing refund of thirty-two thousand rupees with interest. The application combined prayers for civil property attachment with penal demands for imprisonment. The District Forum issued non-bailable arrest warrants, which one director challenged in appeal before the West Bengal SCDRC.

The reasoning. Section 25 is purely civil, authorising property attachment and Collector recovery certificates without any power of arrest.

Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of the execution case this Commission is of opinion that issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest amounts to miscarriage of justice.

For your practice. Counsel should file separate proceedings for civil recovery and penal prosecution, resisting arrest warrants issued without prior summons or recorded reasons.

The order. The SCDRC partly allowed the appeal without costs and set aside the order issuing non-bailable warrants. The matter was remitted to the District Commission to proceed afresh in accordance with law after hearing both parties.

Section 25, Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Case

Mr. Biswajit Paul vs Smt. Afsari Bano & ors.

Citation

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · SC/19/A/1013/2018 · 07.09.2026

Bench

Rajes Guha Ray, Santanu Saha

The dispute. Winzo Games alleged that Google abused its market dominance by restricting its Play Store pilot programme exclusively to fantasy sports and rummy applications. The Competition Commission ordered an investigation and considered commitments before closing the inquiry following a statutory ban.

The reasoning. The Commission held that a supervening statute banning real-money gaming abolished the relevant market, leaving no surviving lawful remedy.

The Online Gaming Act stipulates a complete and game-neutral prohibition, thus there is no room for indulging in discretionary selection of one category of real money games to the exclusion of others.

For your practice. Shows CCI will close even advanced inquiries when supervening legislation eliminates the relevant market. Commitment offers must remain legally implementable; mandatory statutory compliance cannot be a negotiated remedy. Section 26(1) directions are recallable without merits determination. Informant withdrawal not binding but reinforces closure where market-wide ban exists.

The order. CCI recalled its prima facie order dated 28.11.2024 under Section 26(1) and closed the inquiry. No penalty, no compensation, no behavioral remedies. Closure based on: Online Gaming Act 2025 (assented 22.08.2025, in force 01.05.2026) prohibits all RMGs via Sections 5, 6, 7; Second Revised Commitment Application unimplementable; Pilot Program and RMG ads discontinued Jan 2026; Informant sought withdrawal 25.08.2026. Commission reserves right to act if Online Gaming Act provisions are stayed/struck down. All pending IAs disposed of. Confidentiality granted for 3 years under Regulation 36.

Section 26(1), Competition Act, 2002

Case

Winzo Games Private Limited vs Google Llc

Citation

Competition Commission of India · Case No. 42 of 2022 · 08.09.2026

Bench

Ravneet Kaur, Sweta Kakkad, Deepak Anurag