Your weekly dose of legal insights, industry trends, and research-driven updates
1. Delhi HC Halts MCD Demolition, Extends Relief to Petitioner
Delhi High Court has restrained the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) from demolishing a residential property in West Delhi until the owner’s appeal is heard by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD).The property was initially sealed in June 2025 following a show-cause notice under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. It was later temporarily de-sealed for short periods with the last extension set to expire on September 4. Since the ATMCD currently has no presiding officer to hear appeals the High Court stepped in to extend the de-sealing period and bar any demolition action. The court clarified that this is only interim protection and that the merits of the case will be decided once the Tribunal becomes functional.
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59204092025CW136012025_202331.pdf
2. No Trial Needed: High Court Clears Case After Amicable Resolution
Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR filed under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code after noting that the parties had amicably settled their marital dispute. Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order in a petition by Akash and others seeking quashing of FIR No. 356/2024 registered at Farsh Bazar police station. The complainant present in court with her counsel confirmed she had received the full and final settlement towards her stridhan and alimony. The couple’s marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce with no children born from the wedlock. The court observed that since the parties had resolved their differences with the intervention of relatives, “it would be in the interest of justice not to push them through trial.” The FIR and related proceedings were accordingly quashed.
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60803092025CRLMM41802025_181947.pdf
3. SC Eases Digital Filing: AORs Allowed to Modify Entries on Hearing Day
Supreme Court has announced key upgrades to its Online Appearance Portal, aimed at making the filing process smoother for Advocates-on-Record (AORs). According to a circular issued by OSD (Registrar) (Technology), AORs can now edit or modify appearances they have already submitted until 11:30 AM on the day their matter is listed. This change offers lawyers greater flexibility to make last-minute corrections. In another significant update, AORs may also submit or edit appearances in dismissed or disposed matters provided changes are made before 11:30 AM on the day of listing.The Supreme Court Registry has asked the Bar associations to circulate the information widely among members while the Computer Cell has uploaded the circular on the Court’s website for general access.
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2025/09/2025090463.pdf
4. No More Call Drops: Supreme Court Complex Gets Signal Boost
After days of frustration over weak mobile signals inside the Supreme Court complex the Registry has confirmed that Reliance Jio services are now restored at key points. The portable mobile towers (CoWs) near Advocates’ Parking (Gate E) and the UCO Bank e-lobby have been reactivated with a third tower at Gate A expected online shortly. According to the notice issued by the Court OSD (Technology) Kunal Vepa, Airtel users already have connectivity at the e-lobby and Gate Awhile Vodafone Idea customers enjoy uninterrupted service across all three sites. The disruption was linked to ongoing technical upgrades. The Registry apologized for the inconvenience and urged bar associations to circulate the update so advocates and visitors are aware of the improved mobile access inside the court.
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2025/09/2025090487.pdf
5. Article 371D scheme must be preserved, not reinterpreted: SC
The Supreme Court has upheld Telangana rules reserving 85% of medical and dental seats for “local candidates” as defined under the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D. A bench led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran set aside Telangana High Court rulings that had expanded the definition to include all students with residence certificates. The court held that local preference must be based on continuous study or residence culminating in the qualifying exam within the state, ensuring genuine integration. However, a new proviso protects children of state employees, All India Services officers, defence personnel and PSU staff posted outside Telangana allowing them to be treated as local candidates. Admissions already made under interim orders will remain undisturbed.
6. SC overturns Delhi HC, dismisses possession suit in property dispute
The Supreme Court has ruled that documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receiptor even a registered Will do not by themselves confer ownership rights over immovable property without a registered sale deed. The bench held that the Will relied upon in the case was not proved in accordance with law and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances making it invalid. Setting aside the Delhi High Court judgment the court dismissed the possession suit and clarified that succession to the property opened in favour of all legal heirs. At the same time, the court safeguarded the rights of a bona fide purchaser, restricting them to the share of the seller only.
7. Delhi HC: Technicalities cannot defeat rights of person with disabilities
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside ONGC cancellation of a GATE-2020 candidate with 17% hearing loss and directed the PSU to consider him for appointment as AEE (Instrumentation) against a vacancy that would otherwise revert to the unreserved pool due to non-availability of a benchmark disability candidate. The Division Bench held that Sections 3 and 20 of the RPwD Act require non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities even if they do not meet the 40% benchmark. Setting aside the single judge order and ONGC 06.12.2022 rejection the court gave ONGC four weeks to assess the appellant on all parameters except benchmark disability/medical standards with seniority only from the actual date of appointment. The court noted PwBD posts remained unfilled in the recruitment, triggering de-reservation.”
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/NAC01092025LPA7542023_184448.pdf