The Supreme Court held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act cannot be annulled or questioned before an Executing Court.

The Court said such awards attain statutory finality and can only be challenged through the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It observed that objections filed in execution proceedings do not constitute an alternative remedy, as an Executing Court is limited to enforcing the award and cannot examine its validity.

Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s contrary view, the Court restored the writ petition for reconsideration. 

[Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta & Ors.]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh on Meesho for permitting the sale and advertisement of walkie-talkies without mandatory statutory disclosures.

The authority said the platform allowed listings till May 2025 without informing consumers about compliance requirements under telecom laws. The CCPA held that the omission constituted a misleading advertisement and exposed buyers to legal risks.

It directed Meesho to ensure that future listings of regulated communication devices carry all required warnings and compliance details.

The order reinforces due-diligence obligations for e-commerce platforms under consumer protection norms.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a Family Court’s divorce decree granted to a husband based on photographs showing the wife committing adultery, even though no Section 65B Certificate under the Indian Evidence Act was filed.

The Court observed that the Indian Evidence Act provisions are not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases, and Family Courts may receive any report, statement, or document to ascertain the truth under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.

The wife’s appeal challenging reliance on the photographs was dismissed, as she failed to rebut their authenticity.

Finding her objections unsubstantiated, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the divorce decree.

[L v. RD]

The Delhi High Court underscored that a judge must be respected at every level of the judiciary, criticizing a lawyer for raising his voice before a trial court judge during an adjournment dispute.

The Court observed that despite being asked to calm down, the lawyer claimed he practiced in the Supreme Court and refused to argue when given an opportunity. It termed the conduct “deplorable” and warned against attempts by advocates to overawe trial judges.

The petition challenging the trial court’s closure of evidence was ultimately withdrawn, and the High Court dismissed the related applications. 

[Sandeep Kumar v. Kaptain Singh Rathi Through LRs]

The Delhi High Court held that a Hindu customary divorce can be recognised only when supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Court said that a party seeking recognition of a custom contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act must prove long and continuous usage through judgments, historical material, or community records.

It is observed that custom cannot be inferred by analogy or proved merely through a few witnesses.

The Court upheld a family court order declaring a woman’s second marriage void, noting that the family court had incorrectly accepted the existence of such a custom, and that she failed to show credible proof of a valid customary divorce, relying only on a photocopied deed.

[Smt. Sushma v. Sh Ratandeep & Ors.]

The Kerala HC held that a buyer–seller ledger of credit sales does not constitute a “mutual, open and current account” under Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court observed that the account was unilateral, with only the seller making debit entries, and no reciprocal obligation or debtor–creditor shifts existed.

The case arose from a suit in which the respondent treated its credit-sales ledger with the dealer as a mutual account to claim the Article 1 limitation period. 

The Court clarified that Article 1 applies only when both parties have enforceable claims against each other, which was absent here.

[Jimmy Ellias v. The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd and connected case]

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Civil Rights Enforcement (CRE) Cell cannot conduct suo motu investigations into an individual’s caste status. 

The Court ruled that under Rule 7(4) of the 1992 Reservation Rules, the CRE Cell can act only when formally referred by the District Caste Verification Committee. 

As the CRE Cell had initiated proceedings against a retired headmaster without such a referral, the Court declared the inquiry and the subsequent cancellation of his caste certificate void. 

The State has been directed to release his withheld terminal benefits without delay.

[TH Hosamani v. State of Karnataka and Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has refused interim relief to horse owner Ravinder Pal Singh Chauhan, who sought to restrain the Delhi Race Club from enforcing its ‘family unit’ cap for the 2025–26 racing season. 

The Court upheld the rule limiting each family unit to 40 horses and allowing only three entries per race, observing that it prevents monopolisation and potential rigging. It found a rational nexus between the rule and the objective of ensuring fair races. 

The Court also noted that Chauhan had an effective alternative remedy before the appellate body, and failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable harm warranting an interim injunction.

[Ravinder Pal Singh Chauhan v. Delhi Race Club Ltd & Ors]

A US Court ordered Byju Raveendran to pay $1 billion after finding repeated violations of court orders, evasion, and obstruction in ongoing proceedings.

The Court noted that he failed to provide financial information and documents relating to Alpha Funds and Camshaft LP, despite earlier directions and multiple extensions. His non-compliance included evasive and incomplete responses, failure to appear for hearings, and ignoring prior civil contempt sanctions.

The Court held that this conduct justified imposing monetary sanctions of $1,073,647,109.29 while the case continues. Co-defendants Divya Gokulnath and Anita Kishore were not sanctioned.

The order forms part of continuing litigation in the US involving Byju’s.

[Byju's Alpha v. Byju Raveendran]

The Bombay High Court held that the duty of children to maintain and care for their parents under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is statutory, unconditional, and not dependent on inheritance or possession of parental property.

The Court emphasised that this obligation arises “by birth” and cannot be avoided on technical or financial grounds. The Court censured the conduct of the son of a 76-year-old woman who had abandoned her despite her serious medical condition and unpaid hospital dues of ₹16 lakh.

The Court directed immediate measures for her medical care, protection of her assets, and State-level action for official inaction.

[The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society & Anr. v State of Maharashtra & Ors]

The Kerala High Court ruled that forklifts and cranes operated exclusively within factory premises are still “motor vehicles” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and must therefore be registered under Section 39.

The Court emphasised that the decisive factor is whether the machine is mechanically propelled and capable of being driven on roads, not whether it is actually used on public roads.

Since the equipment had tyres, steering and braking systems, it was road-adaptable and fell within the Act’s ambit. The Court further held that factory premises accessible to workers and visitors constitute a “public place” under Section 2(34). The petition was dismissed.

The Supreme Court issued a notice in a plea filed by a Kerala Judicial Officer, challenging the disciplinary action imposed for closing 1,910 petty cases during her tenure as Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Kollam, in 2016.

The High Court had initiated proceedings on the ground that the matters were disposed of without recording reasons, which subsequently affected her probation, seniority, and overall career progression.

The petitioner contends that the closures were lawful administrative disposals and that the disciplinary findings are unsupported by material. She seeks the quashing of the proceedings and consequential penalties.

The matter will be considered after responses from the State and the High Court registry.

[Sony A S v State of Kerala & Ors]

The Delhi High Court held that a delay in approaching authorities cannot bar relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The case concerned a senior citizen who sought eviction of his daughter and her family from the second floor of his residence, alleging mistreatment.

The Appellate Authority had set aside the eviction order on the grounds of delay and the perceived need to establish ill-treatment or non-maintenance.

The High Court found that neither the Act nor the Rules imposes such requirements, restored the original eviction direction, and ordered the occupants to vacate the premises.

[Piare Khan v Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors]

India has officially rolled out all four labour codes, replacing 29 central labour laws. 

The new framework introduces a national minimum wage, mandatory appointment letters for workers, simpler compliance architecture for businesses, and unified safety standards across workplaces.

It also brings gig and platform workers into the formal social-security net for the first time and eases portability of benefits. Women’s employment options receive a boost with provisions for safer night-shift work, while MSMEs get relief via reduced compliance burdens.

The reform aims to modernise labour governance and deliver a clearer legal regime for both workers and employers.