In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court clarified the limits of criminal liability for advocates, holding that a lawyer cannot be prosecuted for defamation based on statements made on a client’s instructions. The Court partly allowed petitions seeking to quash proceedings in a pending criminal case.

The dispute has its roots in a civil case filed before the Family Court, Chennai, where one party sought to declare a marriage null and void, alleging it was forced. According to the complainant, this civil action triggered retaliatory steps by the accused.

In a significant procedural ruling, the Supreme Court of India has allowed a hotel owner to be heard in an ongoing dispute over building regulations in Punjab. The Court held that a party directly affected by an interim order cannot be kept out of proceedings where that order is being applied against it.

The company argued that its building complied with the newly notified Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025, particularly regarding front setback requirements. However, the authorities relied on an interim order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 24, 2025, which had kept certain provisions of the 2025 Rules in abeyance.

At the Srinagar wing of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, a bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. The insurer was seeking to overturn a compensation award granted to a family whose home was damaged during the devastating 2014 floods.

The case originates from a policy taken by late Shad Mohd Bashir, whose residential house at Sarai Payeen, Amira Kadal, Srinagar, had been insured since 2009. Though the policy was renewed annually, the company later claimed that it excluded flood and similar storm-related risks - referred to in technical jargon as “STFI” (Storm, Tempest, Flood, Inundation).