- within Criminal Law, Tax and Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with readers working within the Technology and Law Firm industries
WELCOME TO OUR JUNE NEWSLETTER
Legal & Market Insight Monthly Newsletter
Welcome to Hammurabi & Solomon Partners' Legal and Market Insight Monthly Newsletter, your trusted source for comprehensive updates and expert analyses. Each month, we bring you the latest developments across Consumer Law, Intellectual Property Rights and Labour Law practice, curated to keep you well-informed and strategically positioned in an ever-evolving legal landscape.
Consumer Law
NOTABLE UPDATES – JUNE 2026
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Financier Cannot Claim Insurance Proceeds Without Privity of Contract; Insurance Policy Enforceable Only Between Insurer and Insured
Impacted Stakeholders: Banks and financiers, insurance companies, vehicle owners, borrowers.
The Supreme Court dismissed a financier's appeal to recover insurance proceeds after a financed vehicle was allegedly surrendered and later stolen, holding that an insurance policy binds only the insurer and insured. A financier, even as hypothecatee, cannot enforce the policy absent contractual privity or a clear assignment of rights.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Consumer Complaint Cannot Be Referred to Arbitration After Admission; Homebuyers Retain Statutory Consumer Remedies
Impacted Stakeholders: Homebuyers , cooperative housing societies, real estate developers, arbitration practitioners.
The Supreme Court restored a homebuyer's consumer complaint against a cooperative housing society, holding that once a complaint is admitted, the Consumer Commission cannot refer it to arbitration under a private agreement. Consumer fora jurisdiction cannot be ousted post-admission through an arbitral referral.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Homebuyer Can Claim Compensation for Delay Even After Taking Possession
Impacted Stakeholders:Homebuyers, real estate developers, housing authorities, consumer fora.
The Supreme Court clarified that a homebuyer may claim compensation for delayed delivery even after taking possession, since the cause of action arises from the pre-delivery delay period. Accepting possession does not extinguish the right to seek damages, subject to limitation.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC)
Defective Business Class Seat Amounts to Deficiency in Service; Air India Liable to Compensate Passenger
Impacted Stakeholders:Airlines, air passengers, senior citizens, consumer regulators.
NCDRC upheld an order against Air India where a passenger who paid for a Business Class upgrade was made to travel on a defective seat, finding clear deficiency in service. It ordered a fare refund plus ₹20 lakh compensation for pain, agony and inconvenience.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Restaurant Liable for Levying Service Charge Without Consumer’s
Consent; Unilateral Imposition Held to Be Unfair Trade Practice
Impacted Stakeholders:Restaurants and cafes, consumers, hospitality industry regulators
The Commission held a restaurant liable for unfair trade practice over service charge added without explicit consumer consent, directing it to cease the practice and pay ₹15,000 in compensation.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA PRESS RELEASE
RBI Tightens Customer Protection Framework for Fraudulent Electronic Banking Transactions
Impacted Stakeholders:Retail bank customers, digital‑ payment users, banks, card issuers, fintechs
RBI's Amendment Directions widen protection from "unauthorized" to "fraudulent" electronic transactions, introducing a pilot compensation scheme (85% of net loss or ₹25,000, whichever is lower) for prompt reporters, mandatory alerts above ₹500, and a five-day "shadow reversal" requirement for disputed card transactions, effective 1 January 2027.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
CCPA Continues Enforcement Against Misleading Advertisements and Service‑ Charge Practices
Impacted Stakeholders:FMCG brands, coaching institutes, e-commerce platforms, restaurants, advertisers
CCPA penalized English Oven and Storia over misleading "100%" product claims and fined Physics Wallah ₹5 lakh for misrepresenting coaching results, continuing its broader 2026 enforcement drive against misleading advertising and unfair service-charge practices across platforms like Flipkart, Meta, Meesho and Reliance JioMart.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Intellectual Property Rights
NOTABLE UPDATES – JUNE 2026
DELHI HIGH COURT
Use of a Composite Mark Cannot Substitute Use of a Registered Word Mark
Impacted Stakeholders:Trademark Proprietors, Brand Owners, Applicants, Businesses with Trademark Portfolios
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition cancelling the registered trademark "SHAKTI" in Class 30, finding no bona fide intention to use it and no independent commercial use of the standalone word mark. It held that use of the composite mark "SHAKTI BHOG" cannot automatically prove use of the separately registered word mark absent cogent evidence, and ordered removal of the mark under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Reaffirms the Limits of Intermediary Liability in Trademark Enforcement
Impacted Stakeholders:Trademark Owners, Online Intermediaries and Digital Platforms, Digital Advertising Platforms
The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition against Google over alleged non-compliance with earlier orders protecting trademarks including "AGARWAL" and "DRS LOGISTICS," clarifying that the prior judgments required Google to act upon receiving specific notice, not to proactively monitor third-party advertisements. Since Google removed the impugned advertisements after notification, no willful disobedience was established.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
DELHI HIGH COURT
Inventive Step Remains Essential for Patents Based on Traditional Knowledge
Impacted Stakeholders:Pharmaceutical, Ayurvedic and Herbal Product Manufacturers, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Companies, Patent Applicants, Research Institutions and Universities, Plant-based Start-ups and R&D Organizations.
The Delhi High Court upheld rejection of a patent application for a six-herb asthma formulation, holding it failed the inventive step requirement and attracted exclusion under Section 3(p) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it relied substantially on traditional knowledge without demonstrating a technical advance. The Court clarified that specification deficiencies cannot be cured by post-filing affidavits, and that National Biodiversity Authority approval has no bearing on patentability.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Clarifies the Independent Survival of Passing Off Claims
Impacted Stakeholders:Industrial Designers and Design Owners, Manufacturers and Product Development Companies, Design and IP Practitioners
Deciding an application under Order XIII-A CPC, the Delhi High Court dismissed a statutory design infringement claim after finding the plaintiff had itself disclosed the design before registration, rendering it vulnerable to cancellation under Section 19(1)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. The Court declined to summarily reject the accompanying passing off claim, holding that questions of goodwill, reputation and deceptive similarity required trial.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
DELHI HIGH COURT
Acquired Distinctiveness Remains the Key to Protecting Descriptive Marks
Impacted Stakeholders:Cosmetics, Skincare and Beauty Brands, Trademark Applicants and Brand Owners, E-commerce and Retail Businesses, Trademark Practitioners and IP Professionals
The Delhi High Court cancelled the registered trademark "GLASS SKIN," holding it is descriptive of the appearance and result associated with skincare products rather than an indicator of trade origin, given its wide recognition through the K-Beauty movement. As the respondent failed to establish acquired distinctiveness, the Court held the registration offended Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act and directed its removal under Section 57.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Labour Law
NOTABLE UPDATES – JUNE 2026
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
The Ministry of Labour and Employment notifies the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 2026, under the Code on Social Security, 2020, replacing the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.
The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 2026 has been notified under the Code on Social Security, 2020, replacing the 1952 Scheme with a digitally enabled framework for member accounts, claim submission, records and inspections. Exempted Establishments face stricter reporting, audit and trustee obligations, while the mandatory 12% contribution rate remains unchanged and members must furnish Aadhaar, PAN and Aadhaar-linked bank details for digital claim processing.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
The Ministry of Labour and Employment notifies onboarding of aggregators on eShram portal and integrate their systems for sharing data relating to Gig and Platform Workers.
The Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 require every platform aggregator to upload worker information onto the eShram portal, which now serves as the primary repository issuing Universal Account Numbers to registered workers. Aggregators were directed to complete onboarding and API integration by 21 June 2026, failing which penal provisions under Section 133 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 may apply.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
LABOUR, FACTORIES, BOILERS AND INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The Government of Andhra Pradesh Notifies Industrial Relations (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2026 and the Code On Wages (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2026.
The Industrial Relations Rules consolidate fragmented labour regulations into a single digitally governed framework covering union recognition, Works Committees and Standing Order certification. The Code on Wages Rules introduce a uniform wage computation formula, mandate revision of Variable Dearness Allowance twice yearly, and cap the work.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
LABOUR AND FACTORIES AND BOILERS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
Government of Rajasthan Notifies Rajasthan Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2026 under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
The Rules, framed under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, mandate free annual medical examinations for employees above 40, written appointment letters with prescribed particulars, and electronic filing for registration, licensing and accident reporting. They also reaffirm the 48-hour weekly limit, overtime at twice the ordinary wage rate, and a quarterly overtime ceiling of 144 hours.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SKILLS, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Government of Manipur Notifies the Drafts of OSH Code (Manipur) Rules, 2026, Manipur Social Security Rules, 2026, Code on Wages (Manipur) Rules of 2026 and Industrial Relations (Manipur) Rules, 2026
The Draft OSH Rules mandate online registration of establishments with prescribed fees, timelines and appeal mechanisms, while the Draft Industrial Relations Rules digitise and simplify Standing Order adoption, requiring prior notice to workers and unions before any change in service conditions. Model Standing Orders have been separately notified for mining, manufacturing and service sector establishments.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Real Estate – East India
NOTABLE UPDATES – JUNE 2026
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Longstanding Land Records Cannot Be Cancelled via Summary Proceedings by State Authorities.
The Patna High Court held that state revenue authorities cannot cancel a long-standing jamabandi through summary administrative proceedings, even to bypass earlier judicial orders. Any challenge to a citizen's historical land title must be pursued before a competent Civil Court, not through executive shortcuts. The Court directed resumption of rent receipt issuance and warned that administrative overreach could invite contempt proceedings.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Jharkhand High Court Mandates Digital Signatures of Circle Officers to Authenticate Online Land Records.
Responding to litigation caused by data-entry errors in digitized Register-II records, the Jharkhand High Court directed that all online land record entries be verified and digitally signed by the concerned Circle Officer before public upload. Online databases must mirror physical registers exactly, and the Court ordered software changes plus an SOP for Circle Officers to rectify discrepancies administratively rather than through litigation.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
LABOUR, FACTORIES, BOILERS AND INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Executive Magistrates Cannot Invoke Section 145 CrPC When Actual Physical Possession of Disputed Property Is Undisputed.
The Guwahati High Court quashed Section 145 CrPC attachment proceedings initiated over a landlord-tenant dispute, holding that preventive jurisdiction under Sections 144–146 CrPC arises only where physical possession is genuinely contested. Since the landlord's own pleadings admitted the tenant's possession, the jurisdictional precondition was absent, rendering the attachment order void. Disputes over rent defaults or construction rights must instead be litigated before a civil court.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
LABOUR AND FACTORIES AND BOILERS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
Failure to Convey a Clear and Marketable Title Entitles Homebuyer to Full Refund Under RERA.
Bihar RERA ordered a developer to refund ₹16 lakh after the buyer's mutation application was rejected due to pre- existing title defects, despite a registered sale deed already having been executed. The Authority held that mere registration of a conveyance deed does not discharge a promoter's statutory obligation to convey a clear, marketable, and unencumbered title. A title defect traceable to the developer entitles the buyer to a full refund, invoking Article 300A protections.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SKILLS, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Complete Forfeiture of Project Registration Fees Upon Rejection or Delayed Withdrawal Constitutes Arbitrary Forfeiture and Unjust Enrichment.
The Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held that ORERA cannot retain 100% of registration fees where an application is rejected or withdrawn beyond the 30-day window due to technical or jurisdictional causes beyond the promoter's control. Applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius to Rule 3(5)'s 10% retention clause for timely withdrawals, the Tribunal found full forfeiture arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 265. It directed refunds after deducting only 12% as administrative charges and recommended a structured deduction framework akin to Rajasthan and Goa.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Real Estate – West India
NOTABLE UPDATES – JUNE 2026
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Redevelopment Consent Declarations Enforceable Against Dissenting Society Members Under Section 9; Eviction Relief Held Premature.
The Bombay High Court partly allowed a developer's Section 9 petition, holding that dissenting, non-signatory society members can still be compelled to sign Consenting Member Declarations, since membership in a cooperative society entails a loss of individual autonomy vis-à-vis its collective decisions. However, the Court refused to grant eviction or appointment of a court receiver, holding these reliefs were tied to a later contractual stage (a 45-day notice and full IOD) and were therefore premature. The ruling balances compelling early-stage cooperation from dissenters while holding developers to their contractual sequencing before seeking possession.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
RERA's Unqualified Right to Interest for Delayed Possession Prevails Over Contract Act's Notice Requirement
The Bombay High Court dismissed a promoter's appeal against a MahaRERA order granting allottees interest for delayed possession, rejecting the argument that continued payment under revised schedules without objection amounted to implied acceptance barring a Section 55 Contract Act claim. Relying on Imperia Structures and Newtech Promoters, the Court held that the allottee's right to interest under Section 18 RERA is absolute and unqualified, unaffected by payment compliance or silence. Applying lex specialis derogat legi generali, RERA's overriding effect under Section 89 was held to prevail over the general Contract Act provisions.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
LABOUR, FACTORIES, BOILERS AND INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Co-Sharers Who Themselves Build On Jointly owned Lands Cannot Injunct Other Co-Sharers From Doing The Same
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an Article 227 petition seeking to restrain co-owners from constructing on unpartitioned joint land, where the plaintiff had himself built on the same land without objection. Applying the maxim "he who seeks equity must do equity," the Court held that mere construction by a co-owner in possession does not amount to ouster absent proof of value diminution or prejudice to other co-owners, and a plaintiff concealing his own similar conduct cannot claim equitable relief. The ruling underscores that joint ownership alone cannot ground an injunction without specific pleadings on ouster or prejudice.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Real Estate – North India
NOTABLE UPDATES – JUNE 2026
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Accepting Possession of a Flat Does Not Waive the Right to Claim Delay Compensation; An Arbitration Clause Cannot Exclude the Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum
The Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is beneficial legislation warranting a liberal construction, and that housing construction constitutes a "service" under Section 2(1)(o), entitling allottees to consumer remedies. Acceptance of possession does not extinguish an allottee's right to claim compensation for delay incurred prior to such possession, as the grievance survives on its own footing. Relying on Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, the Court held that Sections 3 and 12(4) of the Act preserve consumer jurisdiction as an additional remedy, and an arbitration clause under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot displace it. The matter was remitted for adjudication on merits.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]