India Case Status

28/06/2026

27/06/2026

Never miss an update on a case!

27/06/2026

Automate your workflow!

03/06/2026

Why do it manually, automate your workflow with IndiaCaseStatus.com.

28/05/2026

Litigation Management for Smart Lawyers.

22/03/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh (director of Kahaani-2), holding that copyright infringement charges were manifestly frivolous and the summoning order was passed without application of mind.

🏛️ Crl.A. No. 1499/2026 (SLP (Crl.) No. 9452/2025), decided 20 Mar 2026
📋 CJM Hazaribagh's summoning order and Jharkhand HC's order refusing to quash proceedings both set aside. Complaint Case No. 1267/2017 quashed entirely.
🔍 Appellant's screenplay was registered in 2012-2013, well before the complainant's script 'Sabak' was even created (registered July 2015). Copyright infringement was logically impossible.
🛡️ SWA's expert Dispute Settlement Committee had already found no similarity between the two works in February 2018, a fact the complainant deliberately suppressed before the CJM.
📌 Court reaffirmed that summoning an accused is a serious matter: the Magistrate must scrutinise evidence and record prima facie satisfaction, not act mechanically.

🪧 Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe
📜 Law: Sections 63, 65, 65A Copyright Act 1957, Section 387 IPC, Section 482 CrPC
📚 Criminal Law · Intellectual Property / Copyright Law · CrPC Quashing

📖 Read full analysis → indiacasestatus.com

22/03/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh (director of Kahaani-2), holding that copyright infringement charges were manifestly frivolous and the summoning order was passed without application of mind.

🏛️ Crl.A. No. 1499/2026 (SLP (Crl.) No. 9452/2025), decided 20 Mar 2026
📋 CJM Hazaribagh's summoning order and Jharkhand HC's order refusing to quash proceedings both set aside. Complaint Case No. 1267/2017 quashed entirely.
🔍 Appellant's screenplay was registered in 2012-2013, well before the complainant's script 'Sabak' was even created (registered July 2015). Copyright infringement was logically impossible.
🛡️ SWA's expert Dispute Settlement Committee had already found no similarity between the two works in February 2018, a fact the complainant deliberately suppressed before the CJM.
📌 Court reaffirmed that summoning an accused is a serious matter: the Magistrate must scrutinise evidence and record prima facie satisfaction, not act mechanically.

🪧 Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe
📜 Law: Sections 63, 65, 65A Copyright Act 1957, Section 387 IPC, Section 482 CrPC
📚 Criminal Law · Intellectual Property / Copyright Law · CrPC Quashing

📖 Track your cases → indiacasestatus.com

25/02/2026

Bombay HC refuses to protect illegal structures on government land — holds unauthorized constructions must be curtailed with "iron hands" regardless of prior occupation or pending suits.

In Jitendra Sawant v. Deputy Collector (WP/2432/2023), petitioners challenged a Nov 2022 public notice directing removal of illegal structures on CTS No. 661, Chedda Nagar, Chembur — land owned by the State of Maharashtra.

Petitioners argued: (1) structures existed pre-1960, before the datum line, so were "tolerated/protected"; (2) trial court had granted interim relief in a pending suit; (3) no hearing was given before the demolition notice.

Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak rejected all three defenses. The Court noted that since the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act came into effect in 1888, permission has been mandatory for erecting any structure within BMC jurisdiction.

On the pre-datum-line claim, the Court held it was a disputed question of fact that could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Critically, no document or authorization was produced despite repeated requests by the bench.

The bench relied squarely on Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767): "Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, cost of construction and investment... cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against illegal constructions."

Key takeaway for practitioners: interim orders in pending suits won't shield structures built without municipal sanction. Courts will treat absence of building plan approval as fatal. Track this case on indiacasestatus.com