The Delhi High Court has sought a response from ICICI Bank within four weeks on a plea alleging that its digital platforms are inaccessible to visually impaired users, violating their fundamental rights.

Petitioners Anchal Bhatheja and Rahul Jain argue that the bank’s website, Mobile Pay app, and InstaBIZ lack accessibility features, making independent banking impossible and infringing their rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pragya Prasun v Union of India and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, they claim the bank failed to meet the digital accessibility deadline of May 10, 2025.

The Bombay High Court directed Yes Bank to pay ₹50,000 to Microfibers Pvt Ltd for refusing to open a bank account without Aadhaar, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) that Aadhaar was not mandatory for bank accounts.

A bench of justices, M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, noted that the Microfibers lost rental income due to the lack of an account.

Despite seeking ₹10 lakh, the court found it “exaggerated” but awarded ₹50,000, citing exceptional circumstances under Article 226 and rejecting relegation to ordinary remedies. 

Yes Bank must pay within eight weeks and may not demand Aadhaar for such services.

The JMFC court in Bandra acquitted an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that the underlying loan was an illegal money lending transaction.

The complainant, Sarika Bedi, had lent ₹20 lakh at 18% interest without possessing a valid money lending license, which makes it unenforceable under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)Act, 2014.

The accused contended that the cheques were issued merely as security and denied any legal liability. The court held that to convict under Section 138, the complainant must prove a legally enforceable debt.

Since the loan was illegal, it could not be enforced, and the accused was acquitted.

The Kerala High Court has held that a manager of a firm cannot personally file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 if the cheque was issued in favour of the firm.

Justice A. Badharudeen held that only the ‘payee’ or ‘holder in due course’ can file such complaints.

The Court was hearing a case where a manager of Kerala Roadway Ltd had filed the complaint in his personal capacity, despite the cheque being issued in the name of the firm.

The court clarified that unless it is a sole proprietorship, a manager has no locus standi to act on behalf of the firm and upheld the trial court’s acquittal.

The Delhi High Court allowed actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to travel to Melbourne, Australia, from June 27 to July 5 to attend promotional events of the film “Mera Kale Rang Da Yaar.”

The permission was granted in his pending appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court directed him to furnish an FDR of ₹1 lakh and provide his mobile number and email ID, which must remain operational during his Australia visit, while also ordering the release of his passport on the condition that it be re-deposited upon his return.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 8. (Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr v. M/s. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr)

The Kerala High Court ruled that no separate cancellation notice is needed if an insurance policy is cancelled immediately due to non-payment of premium, and the insured is aware.

In a fatal accident case, the insurer showed that the policy was cancelled on the same day and never delivered. The Court held that since the policy never reached the insured, they were deemed aware of the cancellation, and notice was unnecessary.

The court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s compensation award of ₹42.34 lakh against the insurer, holding the registered vehicle owner solely liable for the accident. 

The Kerala High Court held that banks are liable for encashing forged cheques if done negligently, even without the customer's knowledge.

The court found that Bank of Baroda (formerly Vijaya Bank) negligently honoured 47 cheques with forged signatures, causing financial loss to account holders. 

Referring to Canara Bank v Canara Sales Corporation (1987), the Supreme Court made it clear that if a cheque contained a fake signature, the bank cannot use the excuse that the customer was careless in keeping their cheque book safe.

The court rejected the bank’s claim that the forgery was committed by a customer’s employee. The bank was directed to settle claims with 6% annual interest until paid. The next hearing is scheduled for July 31.

The Kerala High Court ruled that a bank deposit slip lacking essential cheque details such as the cheque number, date, and amount cannot be accepted as evidence under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in cheque dishonour cases. 

The Court observed that such slips alone are insufficient to establish that a cheque was presented for encashment.

This decision came while dismissing a complaint under Section 138 NI Act after a cheque for ₹1,46,000 was dishonoured. 

Reinforcing the requirement for clear and specific proof when alleging dishonour of a cheque. (Abdul Rahim v. Suku S & Anr.)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that mere overloading of a vehicle does not amount to a fundamental breach of an insurance policy.

In a case against Bharti Axa General Insurance, the NCDRC found the insurer had wrongfully repudiated a claim after an accident involving a van carrying an excess load.

The Commission ordered Bharti Axa to pay 75% of the assessed claim amount on a non-standard basis, with interest, as no evidence showed overloading caused the accident.

If not paid within two months, the insurer will face a higher interest penalty.

The Supreme Court has ruled that complainants in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are “victims” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

This status allows them the right to appeal an acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, without needing to seek special leave under Section 378(4).  

The bench emphasized that such complainants face economic loss due to cheque dishonour, qualifying them as victims entitled to appeal.  

This decision overturns previous High Court rulings that required complainants to obtain prior permission for appeals. (M/s Celestium Financial v A Gnanasekaran)

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for a bank’s branch manager to personally appear during cheque bounce trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that any authorised bank official with access to relevant records can competently testify.

The decision came after a trial court insisted on the manager’s presence and refused to record the authorised representative’s statement.

The High Court clarified that since such evidence relies on official bank documents, requiring the manager's personal deposition is unnecessary and unjustified.

On May 26, 2025, Telangana Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka announced a ₹1 crore accident insurance scheme for electricity department workers, marking a significant step in employee welfare.  

During an event at Praja Bhavan, he presented a ₹1 crore insurance cheque to the family of Jogun Naresh, an NPDCL worker who died on duty, and offered his wife, Ramesh Shrimati, a compassionate job in the department.  

Bhatti credited Chief Minister Revanth Reddy and the 'Indiramma government' for this initiative, which was first implemented in Singareni and now extended to the electricity sector, aiming to provide security and encourage dedicated service among employees.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA) and the Centre on a plea challenging the exclusion of epilepsy from health insurance coverage.

The petition, filed by NGO Sanvedana Foundation, argues that IRDA’s 2020 master circular permanently excludes epilepsy, violating the rights of persons with epilepsy under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition claims this exclusion is unscientific and restricts access to healthcare for those affected.

The Court will next consider whether the exclusion should be set aside as unconstitutional.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the date a bank informs a cheque holder of dishonour must be excluded when calculating the 30-day notice period under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

This ruling arose from an appeal by B.R. Anand, who lent ₹11.7 lakh to former colleague V.R. Gisha. After Gisha’s cheque bounced in 2017, the notice was served on the 31st day. 

While the trial court acquitted her for delay, the High Court overturned the decision, applying Supreme Court precedent and imposed a ₹12 lakh fine, ₹11.7 lakh on the complainant, and ₹ 30,000 on the State.