The Supreme Court remarked that even a snail would question the pace of a civil trial after noting that a suit filed in 2015 remained at the plaintiff’s evidence stage in 2026. The Court termed the delay starkly inconsistent with legislative intent.
The Allahabad High Court issued notices to the Centre and the ASI on a plea challenging an Agra court’s refusal to order a survey of the Taj Mahal. The petitioners claim the monument was originally the Tejo Mahalaya temple and seek an Advocate Commissioner’s inspection.
The Delhi High Court was informed that mediation in the Sunjay Kapur family trust dispute could conclude by August, raising hopes of an amicable settlement. The matter involved an application by Karisma Kapoor’s children seeking additional time to file their written statement during ongoing mediation.
The Supreme Court dismissed a journalist’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order directing removal of social media posts accusing a co-passenger of sexual harassment, observing that publicly identifying someone online could harm reputation and amount to defamation, especially when consequences included suspension from employment.
Shashi Tharoor has approached the Delhi High Court in a civil suit over alleged misuse of personality and publicity rights through AI-generated deepfake videos, highlighting serious concerns over digital identity protection and growing legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence in India.
The Supreme Court held that mutation requests based on a will must be assessed on their merits under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It emphasized, “the application… cannot be rejected merely because it is based on a will.”
Today, On 10th October, Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking guidelines on suspension and blocking of social media accounts, questioning the petitioner, “What is your fundamental right to have access to WhatsApp?” and refused to interfere in private platform regulations.
The Bombay High Court reserved its order on a plea by Uddhav Sena leader Akhil Chitre seeking to quash the FIR in the 2020 lawyer assault case, where the court remarked, “No business entering court to assault advocates.”
The Madras High Court ordered actor Vishal Krishna Reddy to repay Rs 30 crore with 30% interest to Lyca Productions for breaching a loan agreement. Despite receiving funds, Vishal failed to make any payments. The court found him evasive and upheld the terms of the contract, rejecting his defenses and claims.
The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the misuse of criminal law in civil disputes during a case involving allegations of misconduct in a property sale deed transfer. The petitioner challenged the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash charges under the IPC, contending that civil matters should not escalate into criminal cases. The next hearing is set for March 2025.
