The doctrine of subrogation allows a person who pays a debt or compensates a loss for another to step into the legal rights of the original creditor and recover that amount from the party actually responsible. It is an equitable principle that applies only after complete payment of the claim.

In India, Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 recognises subrogation in mortgage redemption, allowing a non-mortgagor or co-mortgagor who fully redeems a mortgage to assume the mortgagee’s recovery rights.

Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 also embodies subrogation by granting a guarantor the creditor’s rights after discharging the debt.

Subrogation ensures fairness and prevents unjust enrichment.

A question of fact deals with events and circumstances that must be proven using evidence such as witnesses or documents.

A question of law involves legal rules, the interpretation of statutes, or the application of precedents.

Facts are proven through evidence, while law is determined through judicial reasoning.

Appeals mainly focus on questions of law.

The Bombay High Court stayed coercive steps by Bank of Baroda, IDBI Bank, and Indian Overseas Bank against Anil Ambani in fraud-classification proceedings.

The case arose after consortium banks commissioned a forensic audit in 2019 into Reliance Communications and group entities for the 2013–2017 period.

The Court held that the 2020 audit report by BDO LLP could not be relied upon since it was not signed by a chartered accountant with a valid certificate of practice. It observed that the RBI’s 2024 Master Directions on Fraud require external forensic auditors to hold statutory qualifications. 

Pending further consideration, the Court restrained banks from proceeding with show-cause notices or taking further fraud-related action.

[Anil Ambani v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court upheld a permanent injunction restraining Rapple Healthcare from using the mark “Medilice Lice Killer”, holding that it infringed and amounted to passing off of “MEDILICE”, a registered trademark of Wings Pharmaceuticals.

The Court found that although Wings sold MEDILICE as a shampoo and Rapple marketed a hair oil, both products addressed the same consumer need of lice treatment, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

However, the Court reduced the damages awarded from ₹10 lakh to ₹3 lakh, observing that punitive damages must be specifically pleaded and justified.

[Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order restraining Ganraj Enterprises from using HP+ and HP®+ for screws.

The dispute arose after Landmark Crafts, owner of the registered “HP” trademark in Class 6, discovered identical screws being sold under deceptively similar marks.

Applying the statutory presumption of validity, the Court found that the competing marks were nearly identical and used for the same goods, amounting to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also noted that the unauthorised use of the ® symbol reflected a lack of bona fides and heightened consumer confusion. 

Dismissing the appeal, the Court allowed the restraint to continue during the pendency of the suit.

[Ganraj Enterprises & Ors. v. Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court held that a statutory appellate remedy cannot be defeated due to tribunal vacancies, recusals, or administrative hurdles.

The Court was dealing with a case where auction purchasers were unable to pursue their appeal because of obstacles at the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Observing that the litigants were not at fault, the Court ruled that writ jurisdiction may be exercised when a statutory appeal becomes ineffective in practice. It emphasised that procedural or institutional failures cannot deny parties meaningful access to justice.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the pending appeal be entertained within seven days, reaffirming that statutory rights cannot be frustrated by systemic shortcomings.

[True Value Marketing Services Pvt Ltd. v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court has held that SEBI cannot rely on an “intrinsic” investigation report to prosecute an accused without sharing a copy with them.

Setting aside a trial court order, the Court ruled that the report forms the very basis of SEBI’s decision to prosecute and is essential for a fair defence. 

Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in T Takano v SEBI, the Court held that claims of regulatory confidentiality cannot override the right to a fair trial.

It observed that withholding such material would place the accused at a clear disadvantage and violate principles of natural justice.

[Siddharth Shankar v. SEBI]

The Delhi High Court has urged the GST Council to convene an urgent meeting to consider reducing GST on air purifiers from 18% to 5%, noting Delhi’s severe air pollution crisis.

The Court observed that if clean air cannot be ensured, lowering GST is the minimum relief citizens deserve.

Referring to parliamentary recommendations, it also asked the Council to examine whether air purifiers can be classified as medical devices for tax purposes.

Stressing the urgency of the issue, the Court said the matter would be reviewed shortly in view of escalating pollution levels and public health concerns.

[Kapil Madan v. UOI & Ors]

The Delhi High Court held that former BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar cannot be categorised as a "public servant," and therefore, Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(b) of the IPC are not attracted.

The Court observed that the offence would instead fall under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, prescribing a minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. This clarifies the legal basis behind the suspension of his life sentence by the High Court yesterday. 

On Tuesday, the Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence pending appeal, subject to conditions including a ₹15 lakh personal bond, weekly reporting to police, surrender of passport, travel restrictions, and a complete prohibition on contacting the survivor or her family.

[Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by Mehbooba Mufti seeking repatriation of undertrial prisoners lodged outside the UT, holding the plea to be politically motivated.

The Court observed that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked to gain political mileage or as a forum for electoral positioning.

It noted that the petition lacked specific facts, identification of affected prisoners, or a challenge to any particular transfer orders.

Holding that Mufti lacked locus standi, the Bench clarified that decisions on transfer of undertrials are case-specific and cannot be addressed through a blanket direction.

[Mehbooba Mufti v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court passed directions to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and the Delhi government to proceed against cafes and restaurants functioning in Majnu-ka-tilla without mandatory permissions and breaching safety norms.

The directions were issued while disposing of a PIL highlighting that several establishments were functioning without sanctioned building plans, fire safety clearances, or other statutory approvals, despite being located on the Yamuna floodplains.

The petitioner sought strict enforcement of building regulations and safety standards. The DDA informed the Court that a suo motu complaint had already been registered.

The Court closed the PIL and ordered authorities to act within three months.

The Union government has appointed Senior Advocates Davinder Pal Singh, Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, and Anil Kaushik as Additional Solicitors General of India to represent the Centre before the Supreme Court.

Their tenure will be three years from the date of assumption of charge, or until further orders.

Davinder Pal Singh has wide experience in economic offences, corruption, and cyber law matters. Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar specialises in inter-State river disputes, public utilities, and constitutional cases.

Anil Kaushik has over 24 years of practice across civil, commercial, taxation, criminal, and constitutional law.

The Kerala High Court held that the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita cannot be invoked to quash a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act once the revision is finally decided.

The petition was filed by a company and its Managing Director, who settled the cheque dishonour dispute after their conviction and dismissal of the appeal. 

Distinguishing earlier precedents, the Court ruled that inherent powers cannot be exercised at the post-revisional stage to reopen concluded proceedings. 

Dismissing the plea, the Court observed that the petitioners may explore other remedies available in law.

[Fifa Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v State of Kerala & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court declined to stay the release of the web series UP 77, after the producer stated it is a work of fiction and not based on gangster Vikas Dubey.

The Court noted the producer’s assurance that a clear disclaimer to this effect would appear before every episode. The plea was filed by Dubey’s wife, who alleged that the series violated her right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court recorded the producer’s undertaking and directed submission of an affidavit regarding the disclaimer. 

The matter is listed for further hearing on January 7, 2026.

[Richa Dubey v. Waves OTT Platform]