Wednesday, 23 September 2026

The dispute. A Hindu widow inherited her husband joint family share under the 1937 Act and remained in joint possession until her death. Surviving coparceners challenged her testamentary bequest and subsequent land sales, arguing her limited interest lapsed without partition. The High Court affirmed the validity of the widow will and alienations, which the agnates challenged before the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act expands any limited interest possessed by a female Hindu into full ownership by operation of law. Actual severance or formal partition is not a prerequisite for statutory enlargement.

For your practice. Title examiners can rely on conveyances executed by a widow legatees without demanding partition decrees or separate possession records.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the sale deeds executed pursuant to the widow testament.

Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Case

GANAPATI (DEAD) BY HIS LRS vs PRABHAKAR

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-000660-000660 - 2019 · 2026 INSC 1033 · 22.09.2026

Bench

S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria

The dispute. An Indian couple resided and acquired substantial assets in the United Kingdom before matrimonial relations broke down. The husband initiated divorce proceedings in India and sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the wife from pursuing matrimonial remedies before English courts. The High Court vacated the trial court anti-suit injunction, against which the husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Anti-suit injunctions require demonstration of oppressive or vexatious foreign litigation. Where parties are habitually resident overseas and property is located abroad, comity of courts and forum conveniens bar domestic anti-suit interference.

For your practice. Cross-border matrimonial litigants cannot obtain unilateral domestic injunctions when the foreign jurisdiction has a closer territorial nexus to the marriage.

The order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the vacation of the anti-suit injunction without order as to costs.

Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Case

MIHIR PRAKASH BAJORIA vs VIDUSHI JAIN BAJORIA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-013096-013096 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1034 · 22.09.2026

Bench

S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria

The dispute. Social media influencers published independent laboratory tests revealing heavy metal contamination in commercial Ayurvedic formulations. The manufacturer instituted a defamation suit claiming brand dilution and sought an urgent pre-trial restrain order against further broadcasts. The trial court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining publication, which the creators challenged in appeal.

The reasoning. Under the Bonnard principle, pre-trial injunctions cannot issue where the defendant pleads justification unless the defence is manifestly unviable. The court must preserve public interest debate unless malice is demonstrated.

For your practice. Commercial brand owners cannot secure gag orders against product reviewers without affirmatively disproving laboratory findings at the threshold.

The order. The High Court set aside the ex parte injunction and permitted republication of the laboratory test videos without order as to costs.

Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, 1969

Case

Arpit Mangal & ors. v. Emami Limited & ors.

Citation

Calcutta High Court · FMA/1036/2025 · 22.09.2026

Bench

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Sandip Kumar De

The dispute. An Indian refiner contracted enterprise software support under agreements expressly governed by Indian law with exclusive New Delhi jurisdiction. Following European regulatory shifts, the vendor abruptly suspended software keys citing foreign unilateral sanctions. The refiner filed an original suit and sought an interim mandatory injunction directing restoration of enterprise services.

The reasoning. Parties bound by an express Indian choice-of-law clause cannot excuse contractual performance by invoking foreign sanctions without formal proof as foreign law. Unilateral overseas measures do not create frustration or legal impossibility.

For your practice. Global technology vendors operating in India cannot unilaterally terminate maintenance on geopolitical grounds when contracts stipulate Indian law.

The order. The High Court granted an interim mandatory injunction directing immediate restoration of support services within eight weeks, with Rs 25,000 costs.

Clause 12.5, General Terms and Conditions

Case

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED vs SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ors.

Citation

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM)-1006/2025 · 2026:DHC:8119 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Vikas Mahajan

The dispute. A wife submitted written petitions to Army authorities alleging her husband maintained an illicit relationship with a relative. In departmental inquiries, the allegations were found baseless, causing severe humiliation in the husband unit. The family court granted a decree of divorce to the husband, which the wife appealed before the High Court.

The reasoning. Making unsubstantiated written allegations of moral turpitude to a spouse military commanding officers strikes at their professional reputation. Such conduct causes profound mental harassment, constituting actionable cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a).

Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.

For your practice. Lawyers must now treat unsubstantiated allegations to professional authorities as per se mental cruelty in HMA cases, shifting burden to the alleging spouse to prove claims and enabling quicker divorce proofs where traditional cruelty evidence is absent.

The order. Appeal dismissed; family court's divorce decree dated 28.09.2020 upheld. No monetary relief, interest, or compliance timelines granted as decree solely dissolved marriage based on wife's proven mental cruelty via false Army complaints.

Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Case

Smt. Raj Kumari v. Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Citation

Himachal Pradesh High Court · FAO(FC)/2/2021 · 2026:HHC:40628 · 22.09.2026

Bench

Ajay Mohan Goel, Yogesh Jaswal

The dispute. Police authorities ordered the preventive detention of an individual under drug trafficking prevention laws citing recurring criminal cases. The detention grounds informed the detenu of rights to represent to the State Government and Advisory Board but omitted the detaining authority. The detenu spouse petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention order for constitutional non-compliance.

The reasoning. Article 22(5) guarantees an immediate right to make effective representation to the detaining authority until the order is approved. Failure to inform the detenu of this distinct statutory avenue vitiates the detention at inception.

For your practice. Defence counsel in preventive detention challenges can secure immediate quashing where the communication fails to specify representation to the detaining officer.

The order. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the detenu immediate release from custody.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India

Case

SMT. MALA W/O. RAJU KALE vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation

Karnataka High Court · WPHC/100019/2026 · 22.09.2026

Bench

M. Nagaprasanna, Hema Kulkarni

The dispute. An Indian fishing vessel collided with a foreign-flagged oil tanker within Indian territorial waters, causing total loss of the boat. The Indian owner instituted an in personam admiralty damage suit before the High Court without seeking prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. The foreign vessel management company opposed registration of the suit citing absence of prior Letters Patent leave.

The reasoning. Section 17 of the Admiralty Act 2017 repealed historic Letters Patent requirements for maritime claims. Territorial nexus under Section 7(1)(a) confers complete jurisdiction where the maritime cause of action arose within Indian waters.

For your practice. Maritime practitioners can file in personam admiralty suits directly against foreign operators without the procedural burden of Clause XII leave.

The order. The High Court held no prior leave was required and directed the Registry to number and proceed with the admiralty suit.

Section 17, Admiralty Act, 2017

Case

ANTHONYTHASAN DECARTHUS OWNER OF INDIAN FISHING BOAT RUBY REG NO IND TN 15 MM 6742 vs ANGLO EASTERN TANKER MANAGEMENT HONG KONG LTD OWNER OF MV NEW FRONTIER

Citation

Bombay High Court · LPETNL/16349/2026 · 2026:BHC-OS:20779 · 21.09.2026

Bench

Abhay Ahuja

The dispute. A corporate debtor under liquidation owned commercial units occupied by parties claiming tenancy without registered leases or rental receipts. The liquidator applied directly to the adjudicating authority to recover custody of the liquidation estate assets. The adjudicating authority ordered summary eviction under Section 60(5)(c), which the occupants challenged before the appellate tribunal.

The reasoning. Section 238 of the IBC contains a non-obstante clause that overrides state rent control protections. The liquidator carries a statutory duty to take custody of corporate assets, and the tribunal possesses jurisdiction to order summary eviction.

For your practice. Insolvency practitioners can evict unauthorized occupants directly through company tribunals without pursuing multi-year state rent control litigation.

The order. The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals and directed the occupants to vacate the corporate properties within two weeks.

Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Case

M/S Duke Fashions (India) Ltd. And ... vs Sh. Pramod Kumar Misra & ors.

Citation

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No. 1462 of 2026 · 22.09.2026

Bench

Yogesh Khanna