Search cases

In re: Compensation for cancelled housing scheme advertisement — Allahabad High Court

In the case of Shantanu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a housing authority must compensate an allottee for their investment if a scheme advertisement is withdrawn after a Letter of Intent is issued due to the authority's fault. Following this decision as reported on 26 October 2026, the court directed Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to reimburse an applicant ₹15.78 lakh for their investment.

Anuradha Singh and others vs State of UP and others — Petition regarding illegal advocate chambers

This litigation concerns the demolition of illegal advocate chambers encroaching on public roads near the District Court in Lucknow, following High Court orders. While approximately one hundred chambers have been demolished as of 26 October 2026, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed that a new petition challenging a partial demolition be tagged with a pending Public Interest Litigation regarding the issue.

Sourav Ganguly vs 'Doosra' Film Producers — Personality rights violation case

Former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly and Luv Films LLP filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court against the producers and director of the film 'Doosra', alleging the unauthorized use of his image violates his personality rights. The court declined to grant an interim stay on the film's release on 22 October 2026. The court has since ordered a special screening of the film and directed the producers to file a response by the next hearing on 29 October 2026.

Shamina Naaz and another vs Rimsha Taashfeen and another

The Orissa High Court considered whether a Muslim mother can act as the legal guardian of her minor daughter's property under Islamic personal law. The Court held that while the mother is not a legal guardian by right, she can be appointed by a court to manage and sell the minor's property for the child's welfare, provided safeguards are implemented.

Shriram Pal Saini vs Shri Anil Kumar

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court ruled that the seller could not automatically forfeit the buyer's earnest money without proving actual loss or legal injury under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, despite the buyer failing to prove their own financial readiness.

Meira Kumar vs State of Bihar

The Patna High Court ruled that former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar is entitled to compensation for land acquired by the state government in 1976. The court quashed a District Collector's order that had attempted to seize the land by cancelling the family's land records.

Occupants of Riyaz Manzil vs Union of India

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed eviction proceedings against the occupants of Riyaz Manzil in Bhopal, which is currently subject to a dispute regarding enemy property status. The court has directed the petitioners to approach the Central government and provided a 60-day period for the competent authority to make a decision on the matter.

In re: Challenge to the constitutional validity of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act

The Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, specifically dismissing a challenge regarding the restrictions on construction activities within prohibited and regulated zones surrounding protected heritage monuments.

In re: Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens - Eviction of daughter-in-law from shared household

On 17 October 2026, the Delhi High Court modified an eviction order involving a father-in-law and his widowed daughter-in-law. While upholding the father-in-law's possession rights, the court ruled that he cannot evict the daughter-in-law unless he provides alternate accommodation or a monthly rent of Rs 15,000. This follows an earlier 14 October 2026 ruling establishing a legal obligation for fathers-in-law to provide residence to dependent widowed daughters-in-law who lack independent support.

Amitabh Bachchan vs Various Defendants — Personality Rights Infringement Suit

Amitabh Bachchan filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court to protect his personality rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation. On 10 October 2026, the court scheduled a hearing for 16 November 2026 to address a potential settlement reached through mediation and directed the actor to appear in person if the settlement process is not finalized by that date.

Kangana Ranaut vs John Doe and Others — Personality Rights Protection Case

Actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking protection of her personality rights against the unauthorized use of her name, voice, and image in AI-generated deepfakes and morphed content. On 12 October 2026, the court granted interim protection, ordering platforms like Meta to remove infringing material within 72 hours. The court subsequently issued summons in the matter on 17 October 2026.

Tritvam Apartment Owners Association vs. Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA)

The Kerala High Court heard a dispute regarding the legality of Goshree Islands Development Authority's (GIDA) proposal to install commercial kiosks on the Queen's Walkway in Kochi. Initially, a single bench restrained the construction, citing concerns over pedestrian access and public space rights. Subsequently, a division bench set aside the single bench order, holding that GIDA is entitled to develop the site with kiosks provided a clear, obstruction-free walkway is maintained.

CSI Church vs District Administration of Tenkasi

The Supreme Court has stayed a Madras High Court order directing the demolition of a Church of South India (CSI) building in Thippanampatti village, Tenkasi district. The local administration had previously denied permission to use the building as a place of worship, citing potential communal tensions.

Karnataka High Court — Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used in Partition Dispute

The Karnataka High Court ruled on 15 October 2026 that the existence of a pending partition suit does not automatically invalidate subsequent criminal allegations, requiring each case to be assessed on its merits. This development clarifies the court's stance following previous 2025 and 2026 rulings that quashed criminal proceedings when it determined that criminal law was being weaponized in civil property disputes. The matter is currently active following the October 2026 ruling.

In re: Validity of gift deed executed after relinquishing property rights via court-recorded compromise

The Supreme Court of India ruled that an individual who has formally relinquished rights over ancestral property through a court-recorded family settlement is legally barred from subsequently gifting that same property to another person. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside the previous orders of the Telangana High Court and the trial court that had upheld such a gift deed.

The ABVM Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallottines) vs. A. Deiva Nayagam

The Madras High Court ruled that properties acquired by Catholic priests after taking religious vows belong to their religious society rather than their biological legal heirs. The court determined that such acquisitions form part of the religious order's assets and directed the legal heirs of a deceased priest to return deposits to the society.

Phantom Studios vs. JioStar — Intellectual property dispute regarding the film 'Queen Forever'

Phantom Studios filed a plea before the Bombay High Court seeking an interim injunction to restrain JioStar from releasing the upcoming film 'Queen Forever'. The court refused to grant the interim relief, allowing the release to proceed.

Sun TV Network and KVN Productions vs. Unknown Defendants — Piracy Prevention Injunction

The Madras High Court has issued interim injunctions restraining the unauthorised online exhibition or piracy of the films 'Jailer 2' and 'Bail'. The orders aim to facilitate action by telecom companies and cable operators to prevent illegal streaming ahead of the films' releases.

Landlord vs Tenant — Dispute over security deposit and unauthorised stay

The Delhi High Court ordered a tenant to pay Rs 24 lakh as damages for unauthorised occupation of a commercial shop. The court rejected the tenant's claim that the landlords withheld a Rs 10 lakh security deposit and coerced eviction, finding no evidence to support these allegations.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs Reliance Industries Limited

The Supreme Court has directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to deposit Rs 646 crore with its registry by November 6. The MMRDA is challenging a Bombay High Court decision that quashed its demand against Reliance Industries regarding a construction delay at the Bandra-Kurla Complex.