Delhi HC Stays FSSAI’s Ban on Dabur’s “100%” Product Claims
The Delhi High Court stayed an FSSAI order prohibiting Dabur from selling honey, ghee, and edible oils with “100 per cent” claims, after Justice Amit Mahajan found Dabur had made a prima facie case since the order was passed without a hearing. The Court noted Dabur had sold these products for decades and questioned the sudden prohibition, rejecting FSSAI’s defence that prior improvement notices sufficed. FSSAI had called the claims misleading under the FSS (Advertising & Claims) Regulations, 2018; the matter is listed after two weeks.
Patna HC Rejects Daily-Wage Worker’s Regularization Claim
The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition by a daily-wage worker employed since 1995, who had challenged an interim panel for Group D posts under a 2016 advertisement and sought regularization as a Class IV employee. The Court held the challenge to the panel infructuous since the advertisement and posts had already been cancelled by authorities in May 2018, and rejected the regularization claim outright, holding that prolonged daily-wage service does not confer an automatic right to permanent status. (Anand Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar, 2026)
SC: Exhibiting a Document Doesn’t Prove Its Contents
The Supreme Court held that objections to a document’s admissibility cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold merely because it has been exhibited — mere exhibition during trial doesn’t prove its contents, and such documents must still be proved in accordance with law. Justices Karol and Kotiswar Singh heard the case arising from a Madras HC decision refusing to eschew certain exhibited documents in a probate proceeding under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC, which allows rejecting irrelevant or inadmissible documents at any stage. (S. Sangeetha v. Tmt. P. Ponni, 2026 INSC 813)
Allahabad HC Quashes POCSO FIR Citing Compromise and Marriage Intent
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR under BNS and POCSO provisions, noting the prosecutrix was carrying the petitioner’s child, the parties had compromised, the complainant didn’t wish to pursue prosecution, and both intended to marry once she attained majority. Holding that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose, the Court directed authorities not to proceed with the charge-sheet even if already forwarded, and directed the petitioner to properly care for the prosecutrix during her pregnancy. (Pritesh Khare v. State of UP, 2026)
SC: Resignation Can’t Be Withdrawn After Ratified Acceptance
The Supreme Court held that once a competent authority ratifies acceptance of an employee’s resignation and both parties have acted on it, the employee cannot later withdraw it or claim reinstatement. Justice Aradhe, for the Bench with Justice Narasimha, examined DTU Act provisions, NIT Statutes, and a 1988 Office Memorandum on resignation withdrawal to set aside a Delhi HC order reinstating the respondent, while also dismissing claims for back wages and a related SLP against NIT Calicut. (Delhi Technological University v. B.S. Rawat, 2026)
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.