The Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court does not lose its power to hear contempt petitions just because its original order was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

This arose in a dispute over a 2007 Madras High Court order regarding the Corporation of Chennai's absorption of employees. The Madras High Court had refused to hear contempt, saying its order had 'merged' with the Supreme Court’s affirmation. 

The Supreme Court ruled that although the Doctrine of Merger applies, it does not strip the High Court of contempt jurisdiction.

Therefore, the contempt petition must be reconsidered by the High Court.

[United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi]

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has fined Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd ₹99 lakh for diverting funds, manipulating accounts, and misleading investors.

SEBI found that the company diverted ₹99.48 crore it received from Eros International Media Ltd. for film production and content, but did not use it for legitimate business purposes.

SEBI ordered the company to recover the diverted amount with 12% interest, transfer unpaid dividends to the Investor Education and Protection Fund, and restrict access to the securities market for key individuals involved.

The action aims to protect investors and enforce compliance with securities laws.

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark 'ACCKO' from the Trade Marks Register, ruling it deceptively similar to the well-known insurance brand 'ACKO'.

Justice Jyoti Singh found that 'ACCKO', used by a logistics company, was phonetically and visually nearly identical to 'ACKO', which has been a registered "well-known" trademark since 2016.

The Court noted that the slight spelling variation was a deliberate attempt to ride on ACKO’s established reputation, likely causing consumer confusion.

Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel the infringing 'ACCKO' mark to protect the integrity of the original brand.

[Acko Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra & Anr.]

The Kerala High Court recently held that failing to provide written grounds of arrest to both the accused and their relatives renders an arrest illegal.

Justice Kausar Edappagath observed that a mere phone call to relatives does not satisfy legal requirements.

The Court granted bail to a man accused of drug trafficking, noting that while he received the grounds, his family did not receive them in writing. Further emphasizing that constitutional protections under Article 22 and the BNSS require written communication to enable families to seek legal remedy. 

The Court ruled that such procedural lapses vitiate the arrest, justifying the accused's release.

[Basheer Thaliyil v. State of Kerala & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court recently stayed a Sessions Court order that had put on hold the bail granted to Indian Youth Congress President Uday Bhanu Chib.

The Bench observed that the lower court’s order reflected "no application of mind" and lacked clear reasoning. 

A Magistrate initially granted Chib bail following a protest at the India AI Impact Summit, but the Sessions Court stayed that release ex parte. The High Court held that orders staying bail must disclose how precedents apply to the specific facts of the case.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 6.

[Uday Bhanu Chib v. State of NCT of Delhi]

The Jharkhand HC recently held that under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, a Labour Court can modify a punishment even if the initial enquiry was fair. 

The Court ruled that penalties must not be shockingly disproportionate.

The case involved a workman discharged in 1984 for allegedly abusing a doctor. The Court found the workman was in severe pain due to an unremoved stitch and was unfairly dismissed.

Noting the family's 40-year struggle, the Court awarded full back wages and benefits to the deceased workman’s legal heirs.

[The Management of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi w/o late C.K. Singh & Ors.]

The Gujarat High Court recently issued notices to the Central and State governments on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising alarms over the misuse of AI-generated deepfakes targeting constitutional authorities.

A Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray directed the Gujarat Director General of Police (DGP) to detail existing enforcement frameworks.

The petitioner highlighted that despite 2025-2026 amendments to the IT Act, procedural gaps persist in real-time police support and coordination with platforms like Meta and Google.

The Court will consider issuing notices to intermediaries after reviewing the government responses on March 20.

[Vikas Vijay Nair v. State of Gujarat]

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi, directed Malaysia Airlines to refund ₹65,802 with interest to a traveler whose flights were cancelled during the pandemic.

The Commission also penalized MakeMyTrip for deficient service and providing false assurances regarding refunds. Criticizing both entities for forcing the customer to shuttle between them for years without resolution.

The Commission held that while the pandemic was beyond the airline's control, they could not retain the fare when passengers were not at fault.

Consequently, the airline must refund the fare, while MakeMyTrip was ordered to pay ₹25,000 for its failures, alongside additional compensation for mental agony.

[Karan Pradeep v. MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd.]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed a ₹8 lakh penalty on Raising Superstars Enterprises Pvt Ltd for unsubstantiated claims regarding its "Prodigy Framework Program."

The startup claimed that enrolled infants could crawl at three months and develop a 200-word vocabulary by 18 months. The CCPA found these promotional assertions lacked scientific evidence and violated consumer rights.

It directed the firm to cease publishing such advertisements and ensure full compliance with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

The investigation, triggered by an ASCI reference, concluded that infant development varies significantly and cannot follow a uniform, guaranteed trajectory as advertised by the company.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, has held that when a winding-up petition filed in a High Court is transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and treated as a Section 9 Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) application, the NCLT cannot admit it automatically.

The tribunal must independently examine whether the petition meets the legal requirements under Section 9 of the IBC, including the statutory threshold of Rs. 1 Crore.

Simply because the High Court admitted the winding-up petition earlier does not mean the Section 9 application will be admitted without satisfying current IBC criteria.

[Navin Ashokkumar Aswani v. Falcon Industries & Rajendra Sanghi]

The Allahabad High Court recently held that merely referring to a person by their profession does not automatically attract the SC/ST Act.

The Court clarified that an offence is only made out if such words are used intentionally to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community.

In this case, a woman alleged that her employer used casteist slurs when she demanded her wages for washing clothes. The Court noted a contractual relationship existed, and the term used related to her work.

Consequently, the Court quashed the summons under the SC/ST Act while allowing proceedings for criminal intimidation to continue.

[Harshit @ Honey v. State of U.P. & Anr.]

The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi HC ruling that struck down the Indian Coast Guard's rank-based retirement policy.

The High Court had declared different retirement ages (57 for Commandants and below, vs. 60 for higher ranks) as unconstitutional. However, the Apex Court intervened, noting that such a change could disrupt the structure of other uniformed forces.

It has directed the Central Government to form an expert panel to re-examine the Coast Guard's recruitment and retirement framework.

For now, the existing age limits will continue until the next hearing in April 2026.

[UOI v. Cheeli J Ratnam]

The Supreme Court recently observed that delivering a judicial decision based on non-existent, AI-generated case laws constitutes misconduct rather than a mere legal error.

The Bench took note of an Andhra Pradesh trial court order that cited several "hallucinated" judgments in a property dispute.

The Court emphasized that using synthetic or fake precedents directly impacts the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

Consequently, the Bench stayed the trial court's proceedings and appointed an amicus curiae to help examine the legal consequences and accountability for such technological lapses in the judiciary.

The matter will be heard next on March 10.

[Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.]

The Kerala High Court recently held that restrictions on strikes under the Industrial Disputes Act apply to all bank employees, including those in managerial roles.

A Division Bench clarified that since banking is a "public utility service," Section 22 of the Act prohibits any person employed there from striking during conciliation proceedings.

The Court observed that a strike by bank officers could paralyze the economy and most adversely affect ordinary citizens.

Further emphasizing that while employees have a right to form associations, the right to strike is not a fundamental right and cannot trump the nation's larger interest.

[The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Federal Bank Officers Association & Anr.]