The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court held that the law of the arbitral seat governs the arbitration agreement, even if the main contract is subject to a different governing law.

Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke ruled in a dispute between Oswin and Otila & Ondray over a joint venture operating a hazardous waste facility.

The Court rejected the defendants’ claim that UAE federal law and Abu Dhabi courts had exclusive jurisdiction, holding that the JVA’s arbitration clause constituted an independent agreement.

The Court maintained the injunction restraining unilateral management actions until the arbitral tribunal resolves the dispute. 

[Oswin v Otila]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State and government teachers to submit affidavits stating whether they received and attended training to mark attendance on the “Humare Shikshak” app and whether network issues hindered them.

The Court heard a writ petition challenging a circular that mandated exclusive use of the app for teachers’ attendance. The petitioners argued that the directive was arbitrary and violated privacy by collecting biometric and geolocation data without safeguards.

The Court also instructed the State to verify the training participation and file records showing that 73% of employees had already marked attendance through the app.

[Satyendra Singh Tiwari v State]

The Delhi High Court increased compensation for lands acquired along the Yamuna riverbed 32 years ago, acknowledging significant appreciation in property values and prolonged deprivation suffered by the owners.

The Court recalculated compensation based on current market rates and principles of just and fair remuneration for compulsory acquisition.

The government contended that the lands, located in the “Forward Bund” area, were flood-prone and unsuitable for agriculture or construction.

The Court rejected this limitation and increased the compensation payable for the four affected areas to Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha, ensuring that landowners received equitable and market-reflective compensation for the acquisition.

[Bed Ram v Union of India & Anr.]

Legal and environmental experts have questioned the Supreme Court’s recent modification of the complete firecracker ban in the Delhi-NCR region.

The Court permitted the sale and use of ‘green crackers’ and allowed fireworks during festive occasions, raising concerns about enforcement feasibility, compliance mechanisms, and impacts on already critical air quality.

Observers noted that revisiting the prior order at the request of authorities who previously failed to enforce the ban sent a troubling message. The development suggested that the government and manufacturers effectively secured relaxation following a change in the bench.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) qualifies as a secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings of Talwalkars Better Value Fitness Ltd.

KMC raised property tax assessments on the corporate debtor’s premises within its municipal limits, with ₹30.28 lakh remaining unpaid despite partial payment in 2018, leading to a distress warrant.

The NCLT had earlier refused to recognise KMC as a secured creditor, prompting the appeal. The NCLAT held that KMC’s claim could not be treated as “Government dues” but constituted a secured operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

[Kolkata Municipal Corporation v Liquidator of Talwalkars Fitness]

The Kerala High Court closed the writ petition filed by St. Rita’s Public School challenging the Deputy Director of Education’s directive permitting a Muslim student to wear a hijab in class.

The Court recorded that the Class VIII student had chosen to withdraw from the institution and did not wish to pursue the matter further. Observing that the issue had become infructuous, the Court held there was no occasion to examine the constitutional questions raised. The Court further clarified that the student’s departure was voluntary and not the result of coercion by the school management.

[Manager, St Rita's Public School v State of Kerala & ors.]

The Kerala High Court, Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, quashed ownership certificates issued to actor Mohanlal by the Government of Kerala on January 16 and April 6, 2016, declaring them illegal and unenforceable.

The certificates had purportedly regularised his possession of two pairs of elephant tusks and thirteen ivory artefacts seized in 2011.

The Court held that the government orders and certificates lacked a lawful basis under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Court permitted the State to issue a fresh notification under Section 44 of the Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and wildlife protection norms.

[James Mathew v State of Kerala & Paulose v. Mohanlal]

The Madras High Court overturned a trial court’s rejection of a plea seeking vacation of an ex parte decree in a defamation suit concerning videos posted on YouTube.

The Court observed that the defendant should not suffer due to his counsel’s failure to appear and emphasised that ex parte decrees must be passed only in exceptional circumstances demonstrating absolute indifference. 

The Bench stressed judicial leniency and directed the trial court to restore the suit, ensuring that procedural lapses by legal representatives do not prejudice the substantive rights of litigants

[Joe Micheal Praveen v Apsara Reddy & Anr.]

The Bombay High Court declined to grant an unconditional stay on the ₹250.82 crore arbitral award rendered in favour of L&T-STEC JV against the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) 

The dispute arose from the Mumbai Metro tunnel and station construction. The tribunal awarded ₹229.56 crore GST and ₹21.26 crore for additional works; MMRCL challenged it as perverse, seeking an unconditional stay.

The Court, finding no apparent perversity, held that a stay would operate only upon deposit of the entire amount with interest within eight weeks.

[Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. L&T-STEC JV, Mumbai].

The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana sought details from the High Court regarding the recent designation of 76 lawyers as Senior Advocates on October 20, following multiple complaints alleging nepotism and lack of transparency.

In a resolution passed on October 23, the Council said several advocates claimed that deserving candidates were overlooked while others were favoured, and requested the High Court to share information on the selection procedure, rules applied, marking system, and criteria for SC, ST, and women candidates.

The Council stated that under Section 6(d) of the Advocates Act,  the Bar Council is duty-bound to safeguard advocates’ rights and ensure fairness in the selection process.

The Bombay High Court has imposed a ₹50,000 cost on Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia for filing a writ petition against an NCLT order despite his appeal being pending before the NCLAT.

A Bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and F.P. Dubash held that the plea was not maintainable since the NCLT’s order had only been reserved and not pronounced. The Court said the petitioner tried to bypass the statutory appellate process and misuse writ jurisdiction.

The Court, noting that he persisted with arguments despite being informed of the petition’s non-maintainability, directed the cost to be paid to the Indian Red Cross Society, Mumbai.

[Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia v NCLT]

The Supreme Court raised key constitutional concerns regarding Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law, noting that in a secular nation, the freedom to choose one’s faith is a protected fundamental right.

The Bench also highlighted the “conspicuous” role and interference of state authorities in overseeing conversions.

The Court, while issuing notice on a plea challenging the law’s validity, questioned whether the legislation imposes unreasonable restrictions and creates an arbitrary regulatory framework.

The Court further observed that reliance on statements from witnesses who neither underwent conversion nor were present during the alleged mass conversion casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

[Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others]