Case 1:

Case Name: Sashidhar Jagdishan v State of Maharashtra

Date of Judgment: 5th May 2026

Facts: The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR filed against HDFC’s managing director and CEO, Sashidhar Jagdishan. The court held that the complaint filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust was a counterblast to recovery proceedings initiated by the bank.

Legal Issue: Whether the High Court should use its inherent powers under section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR before completion of investigation.

Held: The Court reiterated its power to quash FIR under section 528 of BNSS stating that there is no absolute rule which affirms that FIR can’t be quashed before completion of investigation. It referred to the landmark case of Bhajan lal and stated that quashing should be an exception rather than the rule.

Case 2:

Case Name: Asian Paints Limited vs Namgial Enterprise

Date of Judgment: 8th May 2026

Facts: Asian Paints alleged that Berger’s promotional video deceptively compared its ‘Berger Easy Clean’ paint ‘Apcolite Shyne All Protek’, portraying the latter as inferior in stain resistance. It argued the advertisement clearly identified its product and amounted to unlawful comparative advertising, product disparagement, and slander of goods.

Legal Issue: Whether Berger’s promotional advertisement amounted to lawful comparative advertising or crossed the legal boundary into product disparagement, denigration, and slander of Asian Paints’ goods, thereby entitling Asian Paints to an injunction.

Held: The court held that this was a clear case of disparagement rather than permissible comparative advertisement. In this case the court clarifies the legal limits of comparative advertising by holding that indirectly identifiable products can still be disparaged. It also established that viral digital advertisements using derogatory expressions such as “Fraud!” may constitute unlawful product disparagement, shaping future advertising practices.

Case 3:

Case Name: Unaided Schools Forum & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 22nd May 2026

Facts: The petitioners, representing over 500 private unaided and minority schools in Maharashtra, challenged orders compelling teachers to perform census duties. They argued that mass deployment of teaching staff and threats of FIRs non-compliance would severely disrupt education and exceed the authorities’ legal powers.

Legal Issue: Do the private unaided and private unaided minority schools fall within the meaning of ‘local authority’?

Held: The Court held that private unaided and private unaided minority schools are not and cannot be brought within the ambit of a “local authority” so as to attract the compulsory obligations contemplated under Section 4A of the Census Act. The matter will, however, be finalised on 31st July, 2026.

Case 4:

Case Name: Surendra Gadling vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Date of judgment: 4th May 2026

Facts: Advocate Surendra Gadling, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case under the UAPA, challenges the rejection of his bail application. Having spent nearly eight years in pre-trial detention while all co-accused had been granted bail, he sought release on grounds of parity and prolonged incarceration.

Legal Issue: Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration, couples with parity with co-accused, justified grant of bail under the UAPA despite the statutory restrictions contained in Section 43D(5).

Held: The court granted bail giving primacy to Article 21. The judgment reaffirms that personal liberty and constitutional rights can outweigh statutory restrictions under the UAPA when trial will not be able to conclude within reasonable time.

Case 5:

Case Name: Nisha Pradeep Pandya Alias Nisha Amit vs Union Of India And 2 Ors

Date of Judgment: 4th May 2026

Facts: The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which replaced courts with District Magistrates as the authority to issue adoption orders. They contended that adoption is a judicial function and that transferring it to the executive violated the doctrine of separation of powers.

Legal Issue: Whether the amendment empowering District Magistrates to pass adoption orders violates separation of powers.

Held: The court held that the District Magistrates can validly perform adoption – related ‘quasi-judicial’ functions under the framework of the Juvenile Justice Act and CARA Regulations. The court affirmed that the amendment expedites adoption and does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

This article has been researched and prepared by Deeksha Rao, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.